Adoption Pressure

[Stone holm]

Having listened to my children who now teach children, or work with child services, I have come to the conclusion that good parents are a great blessing,and dysfunctional parents are a great curse. Some of the truly successful schools that deal with children from the latter group need less time at home and more time in schools and activities. Unfortunately, that seems to be the exact opposite from what happens. Our foster care system, although I dearly love my foster son who my wife and I rescued opened my eyes to how badly that system is broken. I am now very radical on the issue and would favor well run group homes and orphanages. I believe adoption to be the best solution 90% of the time where the mother shouldn't retain custody. I am not convinced it is necessarily the best solution if the young woman has supportive parents who are in a financial position to help. I am not one to automatically declare unwed mothers unfit, though I would tend to become sceptical if it occurs more than once.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Stone holm

[Tacenda]

Birth mothers are someone's child too. I think finding the best situation that takes into account the needs of all, including the birth father is important. I do not think a child as an adult would like to learn that their birth mother was forced to give them up even though there was a good chance it could have been a decent situation for them as a family and by being placed in that position, it emotionally destroyed the mother. Every situation is unique, protect the baby, but protect the child that is the mother as well.

Thanks for this balanced view. I had two friends have children in high school. The one, I lost track of, the other later married in the temple not to the father. She's glad she kept her daughter. A girl in my ward kept the baby, lives at home and has a wonderful family that supports her. Another girl in an old ward was pretty much kicked out of her home, tough love, when she got pregnant and finally decided to give it up. She later got married in the temple. I wonder if she wishes she had her baby back. It's a tough call to make.

[Calm]

. It's a tough call to make.

There are few that would be harder to make, IMO.

[bluebell]

There are few that would be harder to make, IMO.

So true!

 

This is probably why sexual sins are considered to be some of the worst sins.  They don't just impact the people who participate in them, but impact the children which can be created, bringing them into the world and into situations that were not always God's will.  

 

It has been my experience that even when things turn out extremely well (which they can when adoption is involved, and also when the birth mom and/or dad keeps the child), the child will still suffer some emotional consequences.  And when things don't turn out well, it can be devastating for the children-and for society as well.

 

Few people who find themselves in these positions realized what was at stake.  It doesn't mean they are horrible people, of course.  It's just one of those things that is hard to really comprehend unless you've been a part of it in some way. 

[Ahab]

This idea is delusional.

 

Adoption is not evil.  It many cases it is the will of God.  You have no idea of what you speak.

The idea I had in mind is the idea of encouraging a person to give away their children so that someone else could adopt them and take care of them with the natural parent no longer having anything to do with them.  Even our Father in heaven didn't abandon us as his children when we fell, and the adoption by Jesus Christ didn't nullify the relationship with our Father, either.

 

But here we have people encouraging other people to give up their children.  To give up their rights as their parents.  And why?  So that other people can claim them as their children, with the natural parents left out of the picture.  The adoption services going on in this world don't help the natural parents take care of their children, or help the children to have a better relationship with their parents.  It's about encouraging parents to give their children away.  Who with love in their heart would encourage a parent to do that?

 

Most of you seem to be talking as if everything is okay as long as there is someone to take care of the children as the natural parent should take care of them, as if it doesn't really matter at all if the person in the parent role is the natural parent.  And yes I know there are some people who do very poorly when it comes to taking care of their children, or just loving them, but instead of taking the children away from such people we should be helping the parents to take care of them well. Even if it's by legal mandate with child protective services stepping in to make sure the children are being taken care of.  And even if the parents should be locked away to serve time in prison for criminal acts.  The parents should retain their rights and responsibilities as the parents of those children even if somebody else is helping to take care of them.  And we should want to help the parents instead of just taking their children away.  How would you feel if someone took your children away?

[David T]

Nobody is talking about involuntarily taking someone's children away. I'm guessing you still haven't watched the videos of actual birth mothers I've linked to twice. You're asking  question that they have experienced, and they are giving their answers. If you really want to understand, listen to the words of those who made that decision.

 

LDS Family Services is BIG into not leaving the birth mother out of the picture. Open adoptions and contact and communication is highly encouraged. You're making up straw men of people ripping people's babies away, and people desiring to get rid of kids. You're starting at an absolutely incorrect position, and seem to think we're justifying your caricature. 

[Ahab]

Nobody is talking about involuntarily taking someone's children away.

No, but adoption generally involves encouraging mothers (and fathers) to give their children up for adoption, rather than encouraing them to keep their children.  And that's the whole problem with it.  Parents should not want to give their children away.

 

I'm guessing you still haven't watched the videos of actual birth mothers I've linked to twice. You're asking question that they have experienced, and they are giving their answers. If you really want to understand, listen to the words of those who made that decision.

 

LDS Family Services is BIG into not leaving the birth mother out of the picture. Open adoptions and contact and communication is highly encouraged. You're making up straw men of people ripping people's babies away, and people desiring to get rid of kids. You're starting at an absolutely incorrect position, and seem to think we're justifying your caricature.

Adoption isn't limited to only LDS Family Services, and people who are happy about giving their children away doesn't justify the act of giving their children away.  It is a good thing for the parents to stay involved in their children's lives, when parents and the adopting "parents" choose to allow that, but there is still the problem of people giving their children away, even if it is voluntary.

[David T]

So no, you haven't listened to the testimonials of actual participants in the process, nor do you plan to. Gotcha.

[Ahab]

So no, you haven't listened to the testimonials of actual participants in the process, nor do you plan to. Gotcha.

I have relatives who are happy that they got to adopt some other parent's babies while the other parent's thought it was a good thing for them, too.

 

If that's all that matters to you I'm sure you'll find other people who will tell you how happy they are after doing something like that, too.

[Yirgacheffe]

The Church has some good resources on this. Check also the Adoption page on Gospel Topics.

 

"When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services. Placing the infant for adoption through LDS Family Services helps unwed parents do what is best for the child. It ensures that the child will be sealed to a mother and a father in the temple, and it enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses the birth parents, the child, and the adoptive family."

I don't think it's right to unilaterally say that if the parents don't get married the child should be adopted out, that's just as short sighted as saying parents should always keep their children.

[Stone holm]

I don't think it's right to unilaterally say that if the parents don't get married the child should be adopted out, that's just as short sighted as saying parents should always keep their children.

I agree, and I don't like the pressure this puts on the woman to marry the child's father, but to be fair, it is the logical extension of the policies announced in the Proclamation on Family that so many are so enthralled with. Its one thing to discuss and perhaps mention the default position of GH, but the Bishop should tread very lightly here and support the woman's final decision.

[rpn]

 

adoption generally involves encouraging mothers (and fathers) to give their children up for adoption,

Birthparents will tell you that  they are not giving up their children at all.  They are placing them where they can get what the parents are not then prepared to give them.  Use of the phrase "giving up" is seen as pejorative or at least judgment, when it is mostly an act of absolute personal sacrifice in the child's best interest.  

[pogi]

Ahab, after speaking with dozens of adoptive couples in preparation for adoption, I have gained a powerful testimony of the doctrine of adoption and the sealing power which binds these children to their new parents.  If you were permitted to be present for even one of these sealings to experience the palpable spirit, thereby knowing God's will on the matter, you would perhaps tread more lightly on this sacred experience. You speak near blasphemy to call such sealings the "perpetuation of evil."  Adoption is an eternal principle.  Through baptism, gentiles are literally adopted into the blood-line of Abraham.  The eternal family dynamics are literally shifted. 

 

This is the official position of the church:

 

While Church members lag behind much of the rest of the world in the single-parent trend, more and more Latter-day Saint unwed mothers are choosing to become single parents. Yet the official position of the First Presidency remains consistent: when a successful marriage is not likely, unwed parents are encouraged to place their babies for adoption into a loving, two-parent, Latter-day Saint home (see sidebar).

 

A popular modern catchphrase is “A family can be anything as long as there is love.” Yet the proclamation on the family declares, “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”2 Numerous studies have shown that children are better off when raised by both a mother and a father. These children are less likely to drop out of school, have behavioral problems, participate in delinquent behavior, become single mothers themselves, and live in poverty.3

 

In her book For the Love of a Child, social worker Monica L. Blume points out, “Almost every birth mother I have ever seen who is choosing to single parent believes she will be one of the very few who beat the odds.”4 Many of these unwed mothers count on the father remaining fully involved or on having their own father help raise the child. And many Latter-day Saint single mothers hope to eventually get married and become sealed to their child in the temple.

 

Unfortunately, such hopes are not often realized. And many unwed mothers find that single parenthood is much more challenging than they expected. Studies have shown that single mothers have higher rates of illness, have less social involvement, and, if they are teenagers, are less likely to eventually marry than those who place their babies for adoption.5

 

But as Tammy Squires with LDS Family Services says, none of her clients wants to be labeled a “statistic.” These mothers feel great love toward their babies and may believe that others cannot offer the same love and care a biological parent can provide. “I try to help them see that it’s not about biology; it’s about stability and what is best for the baby,” Sister Squires explains. “Their decision will affect their child not only throughout this life but in eternity. They need to pray about it and feel peaceful about their decision, whatever that final decision may be.”

 

A primary reason the Church supports adoption is that children who are adopted by temple-worthy Latter-day Saint couples can be sealed to their adoptive parents. The sealing ordinance is the capstone ordinance in the Church, and its blessings are present in this life as well as in the next. As President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) declared, children who are born in the covenant—and, by extension, those who are sealed to their parents in the temple—“have claims upon the blessings of the gospel beyond what those not so born are entitled to receive. They may receive a greater guidance, a greater protection, a greater inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord; and then there is no power that can take them away from their parents.”6

 

Fred Riley, commissioner of LDS Family Services, says that although adoption is rarely discussed in Church meetings, it is a profound gospel principle. He points out that when the prophet Elijah restored the sealing keys, these keys encompassed adoption. And one of the ways in which Jesus Christ is our Father is through adoption, for we become His sons and His daughters when we are adopted into the family of Christ.

 

Additionally, Church members who are not direct descendants of Israel may be adopted into the house of Israel through their faith (see Romans 8:9; 9:4).

 

“From the time of Adam, adoption has been a priesthood ordinance,” says Brother Riley. “It’s a principle of the gospel that probably all of us will experience at some point as we’re literally adopted into our Heavenly Father’s kingdom.”

 

Some may view placing a child for adoption as “abandoning” that child. But, as Sister Bake emphasizes, adoption “is not abandoning your responsibility. It’s taking more responsibility. It is truly taking care of your own, because you’re saying, ‘I can’t give this child what he or she needs, but someone else can.’ ”

 

One writer expressed it this way: adoption is “not the abandonment of a baby but an abandonment of self for a baby’s sake.”7

 

First Presidency Statement on Adoption:

 

“We … express our support of unwed parents who place their children for adoption in stable homes with a mother and a father. We also express our support of the married mothers and fathers who adopt these children.

 

“Children are entitled to the blessing of being reared in a stable family environment where father and mother honor marital vows. Having a secure, nurturing, and consistent relationship with both a father and a mother is essential to a child’s well-being. When choosing adoption, unwed parents grant their children this most important blessing. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses the child, birth parents, and adoptive parents in this life and throughout the eternities. We commend all those who strengthen children and families by promoting adoption.”

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/adoption?lang=eng&query=adoption

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c68776978ac17110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

[Calm]

Excellent, pogi.  (out of points or you would have gotten those as well.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

In her book For the Love of a Child, social worker Monica L. Blume points out, “Almost every birth mother I have ever seen who is choosing to single parent believes she will be one of the very few who beat the odds.”4 Many of these unwed mothers count on the father remaining fully involved or on having their own father help raise the child. And many Latter-day Saint single mothers hope to eventually get married and become sealed to their child in the temple.

 

Unfortunately, such hopes are not often realized. And many unwed mothers find that single parenthood is much more challenging than they expected. Studies have shown that single mothers have higher rates of illness, have less social involvement, and, if they are teenagers, are less likely to eventually marry than those who place their babies for adoption.5

 

 

I think this is exactly what Ahab is talking about, with the love and support of her own family, extended family, church family, the single mother can be healthy, and have social involvement.  It's a shame that young men overlook women who have children out of wedlock when looking for a wife.  I can't think of a better indication that someone is willing to put their own life on the line for another than a woman who chooses to commit to her child.  A blanket statement that unwed mothers should put their children up for adoption is truly awful.

[EllenMaksoud]

From time to time you will hear some woman explode verbally about the pressure put on her unwed daughter, niece or friend to give up her child for adoption. I believe something about this may have erupted during the Romney campaign. Am not sure of my own feelings, although if believe I would lean away from it for a daughter and would offer to raise the child myself instead. I can understand the policy and the reasoning, it just slightly makes me uncomfortable. Thoughts anyone?

We adopted a Korean baby (from Holt) who was 3 months old. We were told that with the huge GI population in Korea that if a GI gets a girl pregnant, it is a great dishonor for her to keep the child and it would likely die if Holt did not take it.  The girl was 14 years younger than our youngest, so we really had two families. Nicole will be 31 in April. She was a joy to raise and took years off my life.

[Stone holm]

I think this is exactly what Ahab is talking about, with the love and support of her own family, extended family, church family, the single mother can be healthy, and have social involvement.  It's a shame that young men overlook women who have children out of wedlock when looking for a wife.  I can't think of a better indication that someone is willing to put their own life on the line for another than a woman who chooses to commit to her child.  A blanket statement that unwed mothers should put their children up for adoption is truly awful.

Step parenting is one of the most difficult tasks on the planet, but potentially the most rewarding. I agree the blanket policy is simply wrong, whether it is the right thing to do depends on too many variables and a blanket policy leads to too much black and white thinking which we already have in excess in the Church.

[bluebell]

deleted.

Edited December 27, 2013 by bluebell

[pogi]

I think this is exactly what Ahab is talking about, with the love and support of her own family, extended family, church family, the single mother can be healthy, and have social involvement.  It's a shame that young men overlook women who have children out of wedlock when looking for a wife.  I can't think of a better indication that someone is willing to put their own life on the line for another than a woman who chooses to commit to her child.  A blanket statement that unwed mothers should put their children up for adoption is truly awful.

 

My brother married a single mother who had a child at 19 and the Father ditched out.  She decided to keep the baby.  Her parents are very wealthy and offered to help raise the child.  The church supported her and her parents in this decision.  My brother married her when Emmie was around 1 year old.  I could not imagine that family without Emmie as a part of it.  I agree that it should be a personal decision based on careful consideration and guidance from the Lord.

 

Having said that, I think the church is basing it's stance on much more experience than we acknowledge that they have in these matters.  From their perspective, they don't like to gamble with the well-being of a child.  It appears that studies show that not only is the well-being of the child negatively effected more often than not, but that of the mother as well, when compared to adopting the child.  What is most important to them is that a child has a loving mother and father in the gospel, and that the birth mother has the best chance of marrying.  The church views adoption as the best chance of achieving both of these goals, and statistics proves them right.  From the church's standpoint, there is no spiritual punishment or eternal repercussion for adopting a child out, in fact it is viewed as a loving act of sacrifice for your child's betterment.  On the other hand, keeping the child could have devastating spiritual repercussions for both the mother and child, as they have seen through much experience.  The safest route, therefore, is adoption.  Of course, the spirit could direct you otherwise in individual cases. 

Edited December 27, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

I think this is exactly what Ahab is talking about, with the love and support of her own family, extended family, church family, the single mother can be healthy, and have social involvement.  It's a shame that young men overlook women who have children out of wedlock when looking for a wife.  I can't think of a better indication that someone is willing to put their own life on the line for another than a woman who chooses to commit to her child.  A blanket statement that unwed mothers should put their children up for adoption is truly awful.

Yes that's what I had in mind but it goes far beyond that too.   In truth, a woman who chooses to raise her child without the help of the child's immediate father can still get all of the help she needs to raise and take care of her child as if the child had another parent helping to take care of her child.  It is possible.  If either parent doesn't have enough money to raise the child on their own, then some other people can contribute some money.  And if either parent doesn't have enough mental capacity or physical ability to raise the child on their own, then some other people can help out both mentally and physically, as needed.  The amount of help the Church and the Lord can give is truly awesome, and the only real difference would be that the child would not have one parent living in the same home as the child and the other parent.  But there can still be a person of the opposite sex to give that child the benefits the other sex can provide to that child, including priesthood blessings.  It could be basically like an adoption except that no parent would need to give up their rights as that child's parents.  And the idea that it isn't possible is simply-short sighted thinking, because I have seen it multiple times, and I also had a mother who didn't have a man in her home all of my life to help raise but who still wanted to take care of me without giving me up for adoption.

 

And I also think all children want to know who their real biological parents are, and to know them as well as they can.  And if I ever have a grandchild who some of my children down the line might choose to adopt out to other parents I would still want that child to my in my family line as my grandchild, and still part of my family. I don't know what the Church's official position is in response to that particular situation, but I do know that each parent who is faithful and sealed to their spouse is promised that even their grandchildren will be sealed to them, forever.

[Ahab]

My brother married a single mother who had a child at 19 and the Father ditched out.  She decided to keep the baby.  Her parents are very wealthy and offered to help raise the child.  The church supported her and her parents in this decision.  My brother married her when Emmie was around 1 year old.  I could not imagine that family without Emmie as a part of it.  I agree that it should be a personal decision based on careful consideration and guidance from the Lord.

 

Having said that, I think the church is basing it's stance on much more experience than we acknowledge that they have in these matters.  From their perspective, they don't like to gamble with the well-being of a child.  It appears that studies show that not only is the well-being of the child negatively effected more often than not, but that of the mother as well, when compared to adopting the child.  What is most important to them is that a child has a loving mother and father in the gospel, and that the birth mother has the best chance of marrying.  The church views adoption as the best chance of achieving both of these goals, and statistics proves them right.  From the church's standpoint, there is no spiritual punishment or eternal repercussion for adopting a child out, in fact it is viewed as a loving act of sacrifice for your child's betterment.  On the other hand, keeping the child could have devastating spiritual repercussions for both the mother and child, as they have seen through much experience.  The safest route, therefore, is adoption.  Of course, the spirit could direct you otherwise in individual cases. 

At least you're acknowledging that it would be a sacrifice for a parent to give their child up for adoption.  Thus it would be a loss of something valuable to that parent, even if the parent didn't realize how valuable that relationship with their child is.  It is quite a "gift" to give to somebody else.   I just think it would be much better for the parent, and the child, if some other solution could be worked out.

[pogi]

In truth, a woman who chooses to raise her child without the help of the child's immediate father can still get all of the help she needs to raise and take care of her child as if the child had another parent helping to take care of her child.  It is possible.  

 

You cannot say definitively that a mother can always get the help she needs.  When it comes to the well-being of a child, the church bases its position on experience rather than idealistic possibilities.  Look at the statistics, they don't lie.

 

Sure, we could feed all of the hungry people and make sure that there are no homeless in America.  It is possible, but what does experience tell you? You would think that they should be able to find help, right?  It just doesn't work out that way all of the time, and the church does not want the mother to gamble against the statistical odds in the case of adoption.  I can understand why.

Edited December 27, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

You cannot say definitively that a mother can always get the help she needs.  When it comes to the well-being of a child, the church bases its position on experience rather than idealistic possibilities.  Look at the statistics, they don't lie.

 

Sure, we could feed all of the hungry people and make sure that there are no homeless in America.  It is possible, but what does experience tell you? You would think that they should be able to find help, right?  It just doesn't work out that way all of the time, and the church does not want the mother to gamble against the statistical odds in the case of adoption.  I can understand why.

Yes I can say definitively that a mother can always get the help she needs.  This is the Church of Jesus Christ, although there are some slackers in it, and there is still more than enough help to get every parent everything she needs to raise her child as the Lord wants a child to be raised.

 

And while experience tells me that not all people will seek all of the help they can get, I still would not support a parent's decision to give their child up for adoption.  I am in favor of supporting any child a parent chooses to give up for adoption, but I would not support or encourage any person to give up any of their children.  I would rather do all that I can to help support any parent who wants to raise and bring up their child as they should.  That is the best solution, and others should also be willing to help out.

[pogi]

Ahab, you are an idealist.  Unfortunately, reality does not line up with your ideals.

 

Your stance is based on a lot of "shoulds" and "coulds."  Based on what I know about human behavior, I don't expect the statistics to drastically change any time soon.  Until they do, I will support single mothers who choose to adopt out their child, by adopting a child myself.  I personally believe there is a spirit waiting for me that we are supposed to raise.  This may be my own mechanism to cope with infertility, but after hearing the testimonies of many many adoptive families, I do believe in foreordination of adoption.  Just as there are some foreordained to be adopted in Christ, there are some foreordained to be adopted into specific families for specific purposes.  There are many, many birth mothers who will testify to the same thing. 

Edited December 27, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

Ahab, you are an idealist.  Unfortunately, reality does not line up with your ideals.

 

Your stance is based on a lot of "shoulds" and "coulds."  Based on what I know about human behavior, I don't expect the statistics to drastically change any time soon.  Until they do, I will support single mothers who choose to adopt out their child, by adopting a child myself.  I personally believe there is a spirit waiting for me that we are supposed to raise.  This may be my own mechanism to cope with infertility, but after hearing the testimonies of many many adoptive families, I do believe in foreordination of adoption.  Just as there are some foreordained to be adopted in Christ, there are some foreordained to be adopted into specific families for specific purposes.  There are many, many birth mothers who will testify to the same thing. 

As I said, I support the desire to want to help raise children who their parents have chosen to give up for adoption.  I  just wouldn't support or encourage a parent to make that decision.  I would encourage some parents to appoint "legal guardians", but not at the cost of giving up the parents own rights and responsibilities as the parents.

 

And now I'd like to ask you a question, just in case you might know how this is supposed to play out.  Suppose the child you want to adopt, and then later adopt, has grandparents or great grandparents, perhaps far far back in the family tree, who have been sealed to each other, or who later choose to be sealed to each other, while also having the promise that their children will be sealed to them.  What do you suppose happens to their child which you have adopted?  The child one of their children chose to give up for adoption.?  Whose family will that child be sealed to?  Both families, maybe?  So who will be your parents, at that point?  Do you suppose they will be additional grandparents to you?  And what if the parents who chose to let you adopt one of their children later got back together and sealed to each other?  Who would be the parents of the child you adopted then?

 

Sounds like it would be a very complicated situation to me, but I suppose there's nothing really bad about that.  It just makes it more complicated to figure things out that way than if there was never an adoptive parent involved.