Saying this makes you look stupid. "My kids are adopted and biological and foster. They are ALL my flesh and blood."

Your adopted and foster kids are NOT your blood. If they needed bone marrow, odds are not in your favor that you'd be a match. It's nice that you love them with all your heart, but there's no need to go overboard. It's like when someone's child has Down Syndrome and they say their child is very smart. That's literally NOT possible. Just like your adopted children are NOT from your blood.

Friends who were looking to both have biological and adopted children were advised by their adoption agency to have the bio first and then adopt. Not sure exactly why, but that is the plan they pursued.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids are all your OWN - some came to you through birth and some through adoption.

+100000 I don't think about my children as my adopted children. They are my children and adoption is how they joined our family.

+1 -- Our 2 oldest were born into our family and we adopted our youngest. They're all "natural". They're all "our own". DH and I are their "real parents", although our youngest also has birth parents.

There's no formula for a happy family and, Tolstoy to the contrary, not all happy families are alike. Whether your kids were born into your family or were adopted, once you become a parent very little is within your control. You can only see your children as gifts from God whom you love and nurture and respect as individuals, each one precious and blessed.

PP here. I should add that social workers generally do not like people to adopt out of birth order. They prefer the newest arriving child to be the youngest. There are good reasons for this.

We did adopt out of birth order for one adoption, and it adds complications, although not impossible.

My kids are adopted and biological and foster. They are ALL my flesh and blood. Period. They are all such a part of me, I cannot imagine anything else or any other life. They are grown now,

We had one bio child first. Then adopted. Then had foster children.

For me, I liked having the experience of the whole event (pregnancy through delivery) come first. Raising my biological child first gave me some perspective. I had gone through all the stages with the first DC. It was helpful because it allowed me to realize that my adopted and foster kids are just kids. Their issues are mostly KID issues. Just like my bio kid's issues are mostly KID issues. Not all of the issues that adopted kids face are adoption issues, or abandonment issues, or something related to that. Sometimes their issues simply are because they are human and are 3, or 12, or 17 years old.

So it was helpful to have our bio child first. Our bio child has no memory of life as an only child, as the first adopted sibling came along very soon. They became fast friends. And so it went.

Your life will change dramatically when you add biological, adopted, and/or foster kids to your family. But it has been soooo worth it. I am utterly blessed.

We did adoption first then bio. Doesn't seem to be an issue.

Anonymous wrote:The kids are all your OWN - some came to you through birth and some through adoption.

+100000 I don't think about my children as my adopted children. They are my children and adoption is how they joined our family.

The kids are all your OWN - some came to you through birth and some through adoption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want your adopted children to feel the same, please stop saying "natural" children, for starters. All children are natural- but some are adopted and some are biological. I'm adopted and a parent to kids through birth and adoption and I feel strongly about not using the word natural.

I have read that you don't want the birth order messed up...so your adopted child should be a year younger than the next oldest in the house, but also that it's fine to then have a bio kid after that.

As others said, an agency would have good recommendations on how to approach this issue.

OP here - thank you!! I am new to this world as I don't have anyone in my family that was adopted, but have always wanted to be a part of it. Noted and will use bio from now on!

Thanks for being cool about that. I'm an adoptee, and I agree that "natural" is a terrible word. Also, don't use the phrase "real mom" to refer to a child's biological mother.

Anonymous wrote:If you want your adopted children to feel the same, please stop saying "natural" children, for starters. All children are natural- but some are adopted and some are biological. I'm adopted and a parent to kids through birth and adoption and I feel strongly about not using the word natural.

I have read that you don't want the birth order messed up...so your adopted child should be a year younger than the next oldest in the house, but also that it's fine to then have a bio kid after that.

As others said, an agency would have good recommendations on how to approach this issue.

OP here - thank you!! I am new to this world as I don't have anyone in my family that was adopted, but have always wanted to be a part of it. Noted and will use bio from now on!

I've always thought that ideally the bio kid should be first that way, the adopted kid knows that the parents specifically wanted him/her even though they already had a bio kid. If the other way around, the adoptee will always wonder if the parents would have bothered to go through adoption if they knew that the bio kid was going to happen down the road.

If you want your adopted children to feel the same, please stop saying "natural" children, for starters. All children are natural- but some are adopted and some are biological. I'm adopted and a parent to kids through birth and adoption and I feel strongly about not using the word natural.

I have read that you don't want the birth order messed up...so your adopted child should be a year younger than the next oldest in the house, but also that it's fine to then have a bio kid after that.

As others said, an agency would have good recommendations on how to approach this issue.

I bet area adoption agencies/social workers would have lots of great info on this.

A lot of older adoptees that I see listed say that they should be the youngest kid in the house.

Seeking advice/experiences from families with both natural and adopted children. I have always wanted to adopt children, and also hopefully have some of my own. Ideally we would like 3-4 children and will most likely have a natural 1st child. But after that, would you recommend adopting the 2nd or continuing on to have 2 natural children in a row and then begin the adoption process? I know there are a lot of factors here beyond my control but wanted to see if anyone has any advice or pointers on this matter. Most important for me is for the adopted child(ren) to feel every bit as much a part of us and our family as our natural children, and to provide the best transition and support for them emotionally. I'm in my late 20's so there would likely be enough "time" to space apart natural children and adopt in between, so that is not a huge issue affecting my question.