Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

You are a loon.

And, apparently, also a social worker. I have no words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

You are a loon.

I think it’s a mistake to lump all of these situations together. There’s a difference between someone who is an addiction but wants to get her life together to be a parent and someone who is 16 and does not want to be a parent for another 10 or 15 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

You can't be serious. You really, truly believe that, no matter how much the child is neglected, abused, or unwanted, no matter what kind of dangerous situations that child might be exposed to, it is always better for them to remain in the custody and supervision (or lack thereof) of the biological parents while they work on (maybe) getting themselves together? What on earth kind of life experiences gave you that perspective?

Majority of kids go back to their families. It’s called reunification. Yes, I am a strong supporter of it. Adoption in foster care is the last resort and only if they cannot be with any family. You are selfish. My life experiences. Foster care social worker and adoptive parent.

I dont see how you think I'm selfish. For what it's worth, I'm not a parent through adoption. Reunification should be the goal, in cases where it is in the best interest of the child. I find it disturbing that, as a social worker, you dont seem to believe that there are any situations in which the child is better off NOT being left in the care of their birth parents. Whatever happened to putting the child's welfare first?

Anonymous wrote:This is basically why I decided not to adopt and remain childless. You have to be ready for the adopted child to potentially have issues, and also understand you won't be the same as a "bio mom."

Maybe it’s best that you are childless because you need to be prepared for a bio child to have “issues” also. Either way, you don’t know what you’re getting, but usually you end up loving them so much that you’re happy they are there.

Some of the defensive adoptive parents here seem to think there is just one person on DCUM who raises awareness about the downsides of adoption. I assure you this is not the case.

The kind of adoptions we do now - where people profit from taking a child from her family, legally erasing her identity, and creating layers of profit from all of the transactions involves - is ver new in human history. An experiment less than 100 years old, in fact. How could we not question it, from the perspective of whether it is really what is best for a person? In the vast, vast majority of circumstances, it’s is NOT best to disconnect a child entirely from his family, his heritage, his history, his legal identity, his extended family. If his mother is unable or unwilling to care for him, and someone else is able and willing to, that is great, especially if it is a relative who can keep him connectes to his family. But why sever all ties? Why create a legal fiction?

There are actually adoptive mothers posting here who ERASE the very existence of their child’s first mother...deny that she is even a mother at all! And I and other ehonpost about how sick this is are considered twisted somehow?

For the record, I am not a first mother. But my mother was forced to relinquish a child for adoption, and it ruined her life. She never, ever got over the trauma, never had a day’s peace without her child. She never forgot. And my first sibling was adopted into a pretty horrible family, some of whom continue this emotional abuse even today, 50+ years after her birth. I have come to know many women who gave up a baby for adoption, and I know only one who does not regret it, and she has the worst self esteem of anyone I’ve ever known. She simply will not allow herself to believe she was worth of motherhood because literally the only thing she is proud of in her life is that she had the “courage” to allow her child to be give to another family. Her self-sacrifice is her crown of thorns and she doesn’t know what she would be without it. But every other birth mom I know, even from adoptions within the past 10 years, realizes now how much they were manipulated and coerced in the process. The whole
“Counselor” role is a joke. Their job is to brainwash mothers, guilt them, shame them, and fierce them by nearly any means to get that baby. And when the women grow older, stronger, wiser, they realize how much they were manipulated. Some surrendered their rights within hours of giving birth, entirely hormonal, with NO legal recourse if they changed their minds even just a few hours later!

I understand that not all adoptive parents adopted infants in coercive situations. I so, so appreciate the adoptive parents here who acknowledge and value their child’s first mother and encourage connection to their child’s biological family. It IS possible in some circumstances to maintain identity and connections with both families.

OP, thank you for posting back with thoughtfulness and without vilifying us who are deeply disturbed by many adoption practices. You will be a great mom someday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

You can't be serious. You really, truly believe that, no matter how much the child is neglected, abused, or unwanted, no matter what kind of dangerous situations that child might be exposed to, it is always better for them to remain in the custody and supervision (or lack thereof) of the biological parents while they work on (maybe) getting themselves together? What on earth kind of life experiences gave you that perspective?

Majority of kids go back to their families. It’s called reunification. Yes, I am a strong supporter of it. Adoption in foster care is the last resort and only if they cannot be with any family. You are selfish. My life experiences. Foster care social worker and adoptive parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

You can't be serious. You really, truly believe that, no matter how much the child is neglected, abused, or unwanted, no matter what kind of dangerous situations that child might be exposed to, it is always better for them to remain in the custody and supervision (or lack thereof) of the biological parents while they work on (maybe) getting themselves together? What on earth kind of life experiences gave you that perspective?

Anonymous wrote:This is basically why I decided not to adopt and remain childless. You have to be ready for the adopted child to potentially have issues, and also understand you won't be the same as a "bio mom."

What are you talking about. There is no comparison. I am mom. I adopted child who has "issues." No regrets and I'd do it again knowing what I know. But, please don't adopt.

Anonymous wrote:Adoptee here. I wanted to say how much I dislike the “adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem” saying. Abortion is also a permanent solution to a temporary problem and for people who have kids to save marriages, so is the act itself of having that child. We make choices all the time in life with the best info we have at the time. Why don’t we trust women to make a choice that is best for them, whether it’s placing a child for adoption, having the baby, or having an abortion? There are some women who’d be better served with more support and some who don’t want to be parents.

Nicely said.

Adoptee here. I wanted to say how much I dislike the “adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem” saying. Abortion is also a permanent solution to a temporary problem and for people who have kids to save marriages, so is the act itself of having that child. We make choices all the time in life with the best info we have at the time. Why don’t we trust women to make a choice that is best for them, whether it’s placing a child for adoption, having the baby, or having an abortion? There are some women who’d be better served with more support and some who don’t want to be parents.

This is basically why I decided not to adopt and remain childless. You have to be ready for the adopted child to potentially have issues, and also understand you won't be the same as a "bio mom."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Actually you can and that is what is done. Kids belong first with biological families and parents have ever right get themselves together first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a for profit adoption industry? Yes of course there is, but there are also plenty of women out there that simply aren't ready to parent the children they give birth to. It's very arrogant to assume that parenting and reunification is best for all women. Some women will never be good parents no matter how many resources you provide them. Assuming that providing financial resources to people will solve all of their issues is ridiculous.

I adopted my son through a semi-family member (his birth mother is the mother of my cousin's child). His BM was a teenager on her 3rd child. The 1st was/is being raised by another relative, she had the 2nd in her custody (later removed due to neglect and parental misconduct) and her 3rd child was my son.

Shortly after my son's birth she went on to commit a crime that caused her to be incarcerated. Now, she has been released and has yet another child that she is apparently parenting well. But, if she had kept a hold of all 3 of the previous children, what situation would they have found themselves in?

Adoption is a blessing. My son knows his biological siblings, has met his biological mother, grandfather and great-grandmother. Good luck OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Any adoptive mother who feels this way shouldn’t adopt. Seriously. It’s rare that the primary reason for adoption isn’t age and financial.

The old saying supports the data. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

But you can't put the child's development on hold for the years it might take the birthparents to get their act together. It is extremely damaging for children to b passed around, have inconsistency in how their parents treat them or whether they can rely on their love and nurturing WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE FORMING AS HUMAN BEINGS. I definitely think this re-occurring poster was traumatized somewhere along the way...but I believe that children's rights and welfare should be put before adults'. And sometimes that means that the adult who had them loses their chance to raise them...because it would be too damaging for the child to wait out their recovery and/or maturation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here who uses the term first mom, and on further thought I am wondering why you feel the term implies better at all. I use first to describe all sorts of things without implying they are better. My first house was tiny, my second house is definitely better. My first dog was very cute, but frankly the second dog we got after he died is more loyal and well behaved. I love my first born child, but not more than his subsequent siblings.

So, why do you feel that acknowledging that the other mother came first lessens your role?

You cannot compare a house or a dog to a parent or adoption. What kind of person are you? My child has no other mother at this point. Those who know where she is buried refused to tell us or give us or her family the body to to bury. Though I don't think they even buried her. You make grand assumptions.

My kid also has no other mother, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have one before me, and that she didn’t come into his life first. I have no idea how the fact that I happen to know where my child’s first mother is buried has to do with that.