Adoption Pressure

[David T]

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?

 

Ahab,

 

In the end, we're all sealed into one big family tree. I'd be quite shocked if there was rules that members of one line were prohibited familial contact with another. If so, everyone would be in "prison". The importance of vertical sealings (and also to a degree horizontal sealings) is affirmation that we're tied into the tree. The family by which one is tied into that tree can shift.

 

The only way your scenario matters is if one is concerned with the old concepts of strict Family Kingdoms, in which one wants to make sure one can rule over/claim one's posterity in order to grow one's glory. Not really a concept the Church has felt to substantially perpetuate in a long, long time.

 

Sealing aren't a limiter. They're an affirmation of liberty. Family and friendship ties are still going to be there for all in the Tree. My understanding is that, at least in modern understanding, the only roles in the exalted eternal family tree that have been established are for horizontally sealed companions to parentally guide a new generation of spirits through the process of progression (perhaps even through spirit adoption *grin*).

Edited December 27, 2013 by David T

[Ahab]

Ahab,

 

In the end, we're all sealed into one big family tree. I'd be quite shocked if there was rules that members of one line were prohibited familial contact with another. If so, everyone would be in "prison".

 

The only way your scenario matters is if one is concerned with the old concepts of strict Family Kingdoms, in which one wants to make sure one can rule over one's posterity in order to grow one's glory. Not really a concept the Church has felt to perpetuate in a long, long time.

It's not so much about "ruling" over one's children as it's about working out a system for accountability.  Parents are always going to be responsible and accountable for how they raise their own children, and their children will always be accountable to their parents, as well as their children.  It's how we are working out who will be reporting to who in one big network with everyone having a role to play in it.

 

I will report to my parents, who will report to their parents, etc etc, etc, and I will also be held accountable and responsible for my own children, as their parents, while they will have me and their mother to help take care of them and show them some things as they continue to grow.  And it flows all the way up and all the way down for each one of us in this one big family system.  Now with adoption we're throwing someone else into the mix who wouldn't be in there naturally, with other family ties, so do you think the original (biological) parents are going to be eternally left out of the ties that bind their children to them or are they going to be left it with someone else being double links in the chain at that point?

 

I know everyone is going to fit in somewhere.  I'm just asking how you think adoptive ties fit into the one big picture.

[David T]

It's not so much about "ruling" over one's children as it's about working out a system for accountability.  Parents are always going to be responsible and accountable for how they raise their own children, and their children will always be accountable to their parents, as well as their children.  It's how we are working out who will be reporting to who in one big network with everyone having a role to play in it.

 

I will report to my parents, who will report to their parents, etc etc, etc, and I will also be held accountable and responsible for my own children, as their parents, while they will have me and their mother to help take care of them and show them some things as they continue to grow.  And it flows all the way up and all the way down for each one of us in this one big family system.  Now with adoption we're throwing someone else into the mix who wouldn't be in there naturally, with other family ties, so do you think the original (biological) parents are going to be eternally left out of the ties that bind their children to them or are they going to be left it with someone else being double links in the chain at that point?

 

I know everyone is going to fit in somewhere.  I'm just asking how you think adoptive ties fit into the one big picture.

 

To be completely honest, extended eternal family politics aren't something I think about really at all. It doesn't interest me. I know I will have a relationship with those who I love, and are bound by choice with in a sacred covenant of love. And that's what matters to me.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

I know of no greater blessing for those who adopt. I was adopted and became a "Lee" a name I was able to give to my oldest daughter. My life changed forever twice! I have been on both sides of the issue...love is what is needed, and children need it.

[Stone holm]

I know of no greater blessing for those who adopt. I was adopted and became a "Lee" a name I was able to give to my oldest daughter. My life changed forever twice! I have been on both sides of the issue...love is what is needed, and children need it.

I don't dispute adoption can be a great blessing, actually I don't think anyone here is disputing that. What I think is of concern is a standard policy. Some unwed mothers make a fine parent and do a better job than some couples. It is something that always should be considered, but should never be the subject of pressure. Ideology regarding the traditional family should not drive the decision.

[Calm]

You don't think that a girl of 15 or 16 that got pregnant on purpose for the fun and attention of it who is convinced she would make a great mother even though she hardly takes care of herself but looks on the baby as more of something to be just hers, something to love her and her alone, something to entertain her and shows no evidence that she is going to emotionally mature anytime soon shouldn't perhaps so strongly encouraged to give up the baby that one could justly call it pressure?

What about women who are in abusive homes, who are subject to abuse themselves with the likelihood that the child will also be subject to abuse?

What about young women who refuse to care for themselves, taking drugs etc. while pregnant and who demonstrated they have no intention of cleaning up their act or lack sufficient self control to do so due to addiction?

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

You don't think that a girl of 15 or 16 that got pregnant on purpose for the fun and attention of it who is convinced she would make a great mother even though she hardly takes care of herself but looks on the baby as more of something to be just hers, something to love her and her alone, something to entertain her and shows no evidence that she is going to emotionally mature anytime soon shouldn't perhaps so strongly encouraged to give up the baby that one could justly call it pressure?

What about women who are in abusive homes, who are subject to abuse themselves with the likelihood that the child will also be subject to abuse?

What about young women who refuse to care for themselves, taking drugs etc. while pregnant and who demonstrated they have no intention of cleaning up their act or lack sufficient self control to do so due to addiction?

And you feel that Bishops have training to make that judgment call? I too have concerns about predatory pregnancies which I suspect are not a myth, and concerns about children having children, and that reliance solely on abstinence as a form of birth control is resulting in skyrocketing teenage pregnancies, but I still am concerned about undue pressure.

[Calm]

You never limited the pressure tactics to Bishops, iirc? LDS Social Services (or are they Family Services, can't remember) are not staffed with bishops.

If bishops are concerned about the safety of the child they should be reporting it to the professionals (LDS services are staffed by trained professionals), but even more so legal authorities who can step in and assume legal responsibility if deemed legal and prudent to do so.

The claim that pressure is never warranted is likely IMO to cause as many problems as the claim it is always proper.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

As far as predatory pregnancies, perhaps you are thinking of more mercenary ones, but I know of an example where a slightly underaged teenage girl got pregnant so she and her boyfriend could set up house, refusing to get married but trying to get the bishop to pay for their monthly rent with neither of them intending to get a job....apparently justifying the demand because they were too young to be expected to be self sufficient.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

As far as predatory pregnancies, perhaps you are thinking of more mercenary ones, but I know of an example where a slightly underaged teenage girl got pregnant so she and her boyfriend could set up house, refusing to get married but trying to get the bishop to pay for their monthly rent with neither of them intending to get a job....apparently justifying the demand because they were too young to be expected to be self sufficient.

Am thinking of where the guy thinks she is on birth control, or she gets the guy drunk on purpose, but I suppose your example would be close.

[Calm]

Well I know of one situation where the mother gave her daughter slightly underaged and a relative of mine who was just of age alcohol and then sent them into the daughter's bedroom. No pregnancy thank goodness, but when no engagement followed, suddenly he was charged with statutory rape. They live in a neighbourhood known for its wealth though they themselves are middle income. I believe his version because he was welcomed back into the home even after the charge was made.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Well I know of one situation where the mother gave her daughter slightly underaged and a relative of mine who was just of age alcohol and then sent them into the daughter's bedroom. No pregnancy thank goodness, but when no engagement followed, suddenly he was charged with statutory rape. They live in a neighbourhood known for its wealth though they themselves are middle income. I believe his version because he was welcomed back into the home even after the charge was made.

Yes, statutory rape is also being abused.

[thatjimguy]

This is silly to me. The implication is that wealth has the chance to make a child happier.

 

I would argue that not growing up with the burden of not being around your biological mother and think she did not want you would be lead for a much better chance at a happy life.

 

This is utter nonsense.

[Tacenda]

This is silly to me. The implication is that wealth has the chance to make a child happier.

 

I would argue that not growing up with the burden of not being around your biological mother and think she did not want you would be lead for a much better chance at a happy life.

 

This is utter nonsense.

And not knowing your roots.  I agree wholeheartedly.  But there are special circumstances. 

 

My sister and her husband adopted her step daughter's baby, it was official this year.  They have raised her from birth because her natural mother was into drugs big time.  They had tried to help this step daughter get help for years, spent a fortune for rehab facitlities.  And now the baby is 6 and doing so well.  And money had helped a lot too.  And she does speak on the phone with her real mom and this year met and spent time with her.  Open adoption seems to be the ideal situation.  When she was a baby and with her real mom, the environment was scary, drugs in the house I think, very unsafe.  I  often feel for this step daughter and the thought she can't be with her daughter.  Life is hard.  

[pogi]

This is silly to me. The implication is that wealth has the chance to make a child happier.

 

I would argue that not growing up with the burden of not being around your biological mother and think she did not want you would be lead for a much better chance at a happy life.

 

This is utter nonsense.

 

I don't think anybody here (including the church) would support adoption if wealth was the only issue.  I certainly wouldn't be qualified to adopt if wealth was the issue, I'm an RN for crying out loud. 

Edited December 28, 2013 by pogi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't dispute adoption can be a great blessing, actually I don't think anyone here is disputing that. What I think is of concern is a standard policy. Some unwed mothers make a fine parent and do a better job than some couples. It is something that always should be considered, but should never be the subject of pressure. Ideology regarding the traditional family should not drive the decision.

I was not making and argument against your comments, but giving the other side of the coin view. Yes, young mothers can become and in many cases do become great parents...but as all good parents know, it is not about them. The children must come first, always.

[Calm]

This is silly to me. The implication is that wealth has the chance to make a child happier.

 

I would argue that not growing up with the burden of not being around your biological mother and think she did not want you would be lead for a much better chance at a happy life.

 

This is utter nonsense.

It is not wealth, but stability. A lower income home with parents that can be counted on will yield opportunities for happiness that a wealthy home with absentee or on again off again parents will not.

I don't believe the Church encourages unwed mothers to allow their children to be adopted based on the mother's family income level.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is not wealth, but stability. A lower income home with parents that can be counted on will yield opportunities for happiness that a wealthy home with absentee or on again off again parents will not.

I don't believe the Church encourages unwed mothers to allow their children to be adopted based on the mother's family income level.

If they did every young couple would be asked to give their children up.

[Stone holm]

I was not making and argument against your comments, but giving the other side of the coin view. Yes, young mothers can become and in many cases do become great parents...but as all good parents know, it is not about them. The children must come first, always.

Am not sure I agree with the children always come first, nor do I agree with the extension of the "family values" ideology which leads to pressure to adopt if a single mother chooses to raise a child by herself.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't dispute adoption can be a great blessing, actually I don't think anyone here is disputing that. What I think is of concern is a standard policy. Some unwed mothers make a fine parent and do a better job than some couples. It is something that always should be considered, but should never be the subject of pressure. Ideology regarding the traditional family should not drive the decision.

Of course, "horror stories" can be told of human beings screwing up something which is supposed to be a good thing, such as adoption, just as "horror stories" can be told of any other endeavor involving humans when the execution, to put it mildly, doesn't match the intent.  The question is, are such stories more the exception, or more the rule?  I daresay that, even considering adoptions in general, they're much more the exception than the rule, and this is even more the case in the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

And of course, "ideology regarding the traditional family," while it may not be the determining factor in all such decisions (since people have different levels of understanding of and commitment to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ), is always going to factor into them when the Church of Jesus Christ is involved.  To suggest that this should not be the case is to ask the Church to disregard one of the Church's major reasons for being.  It would be like saying, "Yeah, I could buy into the whole 'Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ' thing ... if you guys would just not talk so much about Jesus Christ."

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[adoptednz]

I don't dispute adoption can be a great blessing, actually I don't think anyone here is disputing that. What I think is of concern is a standard policy. Some unwed mothers make a fine parent and do a better job than some couples. It is something that always should be considered, but should never be the subject of pressure. Ideology regarding the traditional family should not drive the decision.

 

I agree Stone holm.

 

I believe that all women deserve proper counselling, counselling that involves taking into account their personal situations and identifying issues etc so that, regardless of the parenting choice they make, they are in as good a position as possible at the time of the birth so that they can make their choice in as an uncompromised position as possible. 

 

Many women considering adoption are not the stereotypes as mentioned in post #106 but are often women whose contraception has failed and are trying to make the best decision they can for their child.  Thus they deserve proper holistic counselling aimed at helping them do what is best in THEIR AND THEIR CHILD'S situation.  Unfortunately, many of the so-called options counselling programs are designed by those whose aim is to get more women to choose adoption. 

 

This is the predecessor to the popular NCFA infant awareness training scheme -

 

http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/missing_piece.pdf

 

On superficial reading, it comes across as all heartwarming etc.  However, on deeper reading, one can see that it is aimed at making women with unplanned pregnancies feel that choosing parenting is always a selfish option, that she is only thinking of her own needs and wants.  It uses the unplanned status against the woman by making her feel that she can never be as good a mother as someone who has planned for a pregnancy. 

 

Now, I understand that a certain percentrage of women who place their children for adoption are those that CPS have deemed not capable of parenting (due to addiction, mental illness and previous abuse) who have been given the choice of either relinquishing their children voluntarily or involuntarily and I accept that some type of adoption counselling may help them choose the voluntary option over involuntary option.

 

However, a large percentage of women who place their child for adoption are just women who have an unplanned pregnancy and are trying to do the best by their child.   They are the ones most susceptible to directive counselling such as offered by the NCFA IATS because their very natural fear about doing what is best for their baby is exploited by those who have ulterior motives for increasing adoption numbers.   The architects of these programs themselves will tell you that they want to increase adoption numbers because, in their own words, "adoptive parents are having to go overseas to adopt".   It really has nothing to do with the mother or child.  If it did, women would receive truly unbiased personally-based counselling, not counselling designed at getting them to chose a particular option.

[Tacenda]

I agree Stone holm.

I believe that all women deserve proper counselling, counselling that involves taking into account their personal situations and identifying issues etc so that, regardless of the parenting choice they make, they are in as good a position as possible at the time of the birth so that they can make their choice in as an uncompromised position as possible.

Many women considering adoption are not the stereotypes as mentioned in post #106 but are often women whose contraception has failed and are trying to make the best decision they can for their child. Thus they deserve proper holistic counselling aimed at helping them do what is best in THEIR AND THEIR CHILD'S situation. Unfortunately, many of the so-called options counselling programs are designed by those whose aim is to get more women to choose adoption.

This is the predecessor to the popular NCFA infant awareness training scheme -

http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/missing_piece.pdf

On superficial reading, it comes across as all heartwarming etc. However, on deeper reading, one can see that it is aimed at making women with unplanned pregnancies feel that choosing parenting is always a selfish option, that she is only thinking of her own needs and wants. It uses the unplanned status against the woman by making her feel that she can never be as good a mother as someone who has planned for a pregnancy.

Now, I understand that a certain percentrage of women who place their children for adoption are those that CPS have deemed not capable of parenting (due to addiction, mental illness and previous abuse) who have been given the choice of either relinquishing their children voluntarily or involuntarily and I accept that some type of adoption counselling may help them choose the voluntary option over involuntary option.

However, a large percentage of women who place their child for adoption are just women who have an unplanned pregnancy and are trying to do the best by their child. They are the ones most susceptible to directive counselling such as offered by the NCFA IATS because their very natural fear about doing what is best for their baby is exploited by those who have ulterior motives for increasing adoption numbers. The architects of these programs themselves will tell you that they want to increase adoption numbers because, in their own words, "adoptive parents are having to go overseas to adopt". It really has nothing to do with the mother or child. If it did, women would receive truly unbiased personally-based counselling, not counselling designed at getting them to chose a particular option.

When I was in a RS presidency, the president, awesome lady that she is, thought that as a presidency we should give a baby shower for a young woman that had a baby out of wedlock, and she got some flak for it, maybe some thought this girl should have given it up. Edited December 29, 2013 by Tacenda

[adoptednz]

 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. 

Adoption can most certainly have spiritual repercussions for both mother and child if not handled correctly.    History has proven that when adoption is abused, it can causes great spiritual damage to birthmothers and adoptees alike. Amongst other things, It can place both mother and child in spiritual straitjackets.  

 

Adoption can also be misused by organisations/governments who use adoption as a safety net so that they don't have to develop the resources needed to help those in need.   Most other Western governments have resources in place so that women don't feel so much of a need to place their children for adoption.   Btw I know quite a few single mothers and women who had unplanned pregnancies who are great mothers.   Also, why do we keep talking as if the fathers always disappear into the woodwork?  Even though some of  my friends never ended up with the fathers, they are still being good dads to their children.  Their children are happy.   Just recently, a friend of mine had an unplanned pregnancy and is now raising the child with her partner and is doing well.  I am just thankful that no-one tried to make her feel less worthy of parenting because the pregnancy was unplanned.  She is a lovely capable woman and is now a lovely capable mother.    

 

Btw please don't try to paint me as a bitter angry adoptee.  I am an adoptee who is basically a happy person and grew up in a loving home.  I have met my extended bfamily and they are also loving people and apparently my bmother was a good soul (she died young).   I just believe in a fair go for people.   I am not going to be one of those adoptees that promotes my afamily over my bfamily just to satisfy others; I feel that by doing so, I would be selling my relatives down the river and it is not in me to do that to others. 

 

As for all the talk about studies, it might be nice if people actually posted those studies?  One can find studies to promote any point of view.

[adoptednz]

When I was in a RS presidency, the president, awesome lady that she is, thought that as a presidency we should give a baby shower for a young woman that had a baby out of wedlock, and she got some flak for it, maybe some thought this girl should have given it up.

Your president sounds like a lovely lady - she treated that young lady as a human. 

[adoptednz]

_{Btw I am from NZ, and this article is about adoption in NZ at the time of my birth:}

 

_{http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1989/NZJH_23_1_06.pdf}

 

_{Although the following was written in the late 80s about the 50s-70s, much of it still seems relevant to adoption in the US today:}

 

 

  

 

The law and practice of adoption involves the operation of what Michel Foucault calls 'bio-power', the power of the modem state, concerned with life rather than death.¹⁰0 For a comparatively short period, in New Zealand as in all the other Anglo-American countries, large numbers of women were routinely induced to sign their newborn children over to strangers, knowing they were unlikely ever to see them again. How was this achieved?

Adoption is closely related to sexuality, and Foucault sees sexuality as an 'especially dense transfer point for the relations of power'.¹⁰1 The operation of power with regard to adoption can be seen as beginning, paradoxically, at the point where society attributes to women a power they do not in fact have: the almost absolute power to control sexual relations with men.

' Before the Second World War, women who became pregnant out of wedlock were condemned for failing to exercise this moral power, and thereby endanger-ing society. The fact that women alone had great difficulty both supporting and caring for their children was seen as a just punishment for this sin. Labelling single mothers immoral and irresponsible justified the harsh terms of the gendered division of labour, whereby women were denied access to adequately paid employment on the grounds that their place was at home, supported by male earnings. Thus it turned a socially-constructed situation into a personal dilemma.

Prior to the Second World War, all children — or at least all children of European descent — came to be seen as potentially valuable future citizens, and therefore worth rescuing. Then in the immediate post-war years, the circular logic of developing nuclear family ideology introduced a new dimension. It insisted that all children needed both a bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, so that they could grow up correctly adjusted to their natural gender roles.

Foucault describes the power of the modem state as 'distributing the living in the domain of value and utility'.¹⁰2 This is exactly what adoption achieved. It not only replaced the missing bread-winner in a way that cost the state almost nothing; more importantly, it also replaced the child's missing legal and social father.

Creating this new nuclear family meant separating the child from its original mother, and characterizing her as both unable and unfit to rear it. Nevertheless, the rhetoric of concern for children's welfare did not normally permit a new-bom baby to be 'rescued' by being forcibly removed. The decision to give the child up had to appear to be made by the mother herself.

There was no need for overt pressure on the single woman, although this was certainly used on occasion. It was enough to ask her a question no other kind of expectant mother was asked: was she going to keep her baby or not? She was told to compare what she could offer the child with what a married couple could offer, and to decide, not according to what she wanted, but according to what was best for the child. It took exceptional determination for a young woman, pregnant for the first time, to resist that argument and insist that what was best for the child was the child's mother.

In addition, almost everything that happened to her, from the day she revealed her pregnancy, was based on the assumption that her baby was going to be adopted. The history of the Motherhood of Man Movement shows how matter-of-fact and business-like the whole process quickly became, and how completely it was accepted as both normal and necessary, so that keeping a child could be described as 'making a tragic mistake'.

'We must cease once and for all', writes Foucault, 'to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it "excludes", it "represses", it "censors". ... In fact power produces reality, it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him [or that she may gain of herself] belong to this production.'¹⁰3 Examining what happened to pregnant single women in the heyday of stranger adoption, we can begin to understand how power did indeed produce reality for them, profoundly affecting both their own lives and the lives of their children.

However, as it became clear that the supply of babies for adoption was outstripping demand, reality was slowly re-produced. Those who worked most closely with unmarried mothers began suggesting that they might actually want to keep their children, and should even be assisted to do so by the state, if not for their own sake, then for the sake of the child. Sixteen years after the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit, adoption is once again being presented as the best way to 'rescue' children from incompetent young single mothers