Adoption Pressure

[Stone holm]

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.

I agree and believe the blanket policy is ideologically driven, but veiled with arguments of child betterment. There is also a hidden shotgun wedding element to the policy which gets ignored.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

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. 

 

IMO with even a superficial reading it comes across as manipulative.  Nor does it require any "deep reading" to see the selfish theme, it straight out says that single women who decide to keep their babies are selfish. 

[adoptednz]

IMO with even a superficial reading it comes across as manipulative.  Nor does it require any "deep reading" to see the selfish theme, it straight out says that single women who decide to keep their babies are selfish. 

The words "selfless/selfish" are used 32 times (easy to count with PDF files).   Every reason that the client gives for wanting to raise her own child is considered a selfish one so she can't win.  The tract was written in 1999 and its recommendations have been embraced by the adoption industry. 

 

This brochure acts at the beginning as if it is helping the expectant mother decide between the options of parenting and adoption

 

In this booklet, we hope you will find the encouragement and initial facts you need to help you make a wise decision … the best decision for your baby … whatever that may be.

 

 

http://www.families.org.au/article_files/Content/ChoosingTheBestForYourBaby.pdf

 

But on the last page, it states straight out where its bias lies (although it is fairly obvious from the first page where its bias lies):

 

Keep in mind who’s most important here. The one truly helpless, innocent person in this situation is your baby. Your child needs you to act responsibly and unselfishly in this situation — which means not rushing into a quick decision based on current emotions, loneliness and sentimentality. The truth is that single mothers often wish they had chosen adoption after only a few months of caring for their child. Therefore, you’ll want to gather information on adoption vs. single motherhood and get input from people you respect (preferably, people who are already parents).

The "realities of life" and statistics make it clear that adoption is the best choice for most single mothers and their babies. Whether or not you choose adoption, however, the organization or ministry that provided this brochure wants to encourage and support you in any way it can. There are people who truly care about you and your baby … you are not alone!

 

Its the dishonesty of pretending that one is counselling women re their options that gets me - the only option according to the above brochure is adoption. 

 

As an adoptee, "I" also resent being "used" as a tool to help women consider adoption - "Your child will love you for it - in fact, they are gagging at the bit to be adopted" - at least this is what the following tract from an adoption agency would tell you:

 

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pdf/BP_STAGE1.pdf

[Bikeemikey]

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

 

Um? This whole thread is about the reality that every young mother (who does not wed the father of the child) is asked to give up the child for adoption. That is the church process... recommend marriage first and if that doesn't work encourage adoption.

 

Not sure it has anything to do with finances... maybe it does. 

[Bikeemikey]

_{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:}

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome... Im from NZ to. That was an excellent post!!

[Stone holm]

Um? This whole thread is about the reality that every young mother (who does not wed the father of the child) is asked to give up the child for adoption. That is the church process... recommend marriage first and if that doesn't work encourage adoption.

 

Not sure it has anything to do with finances... maybe it does.

My guess is though that if you are at a certain wealth level, you aren't going to see the Bishop press the issue. It is going to wind up being a different standard for an unwed Marriot, Huntsman, or Romney, than Joe the school janitors daughter.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Um? This whole thread is about the reality that every young mother (who does not wed the father of the child) is asked to give up the child for adoption. That is the church process... recommend marriage first and if that doesn't work encourage adoption.

 

Not sure it has anything to do with finances... maybe it does.

I guess you did not read the posts I was replying too??

[escott3564]

My daughter's best friend in college got pregnant from a one-night stand.  She made the very brave decision to give the child up for adoption because she really wanted her baby to have two parents, and there was no chance of the situation with the father of the baby working out.  She is Catholic, so she went through a Catholic adoptive agency, which runs very similarly to LDS Social Services.  She was able to visit with the couple who adopted her son, a very nice and faithful Catholic couple.  She has absolutely no regrets about her decision, even though, I know it was very hard for her.  One thing that I know made things a little easier for her is that it was an open adoption.  She is still able to have contact with her son, and her son knows that she is his birth mother.

 

I think that each situation is different, and ultimately, prayer is the key in making the correct decision for each individual family.

 

I also have a very good friend in my ward who could not have children, and adopted two children from LDS Social Services.  They are an extremely grateful and happy family, and I know that my friend is eternally grateful for the brave mother who made that difficult choice.

Edited December 29, 2013 by escott3564

[BlueDreams]

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've been on sabbatical for well over a week from the internet, so I barely saw this and haven't read anything else from this thread. I was almost adopted out as a child. Adoption fell through and my mom does not have the greatest feelings about how it's portrayed (not so much the pressure, but the ease it is to go through and arrange a good adoption).

 

My thoughts are that it should be considered a viable option, and in many cases a good option, but not one to be necessarily pressured on them. I wish they would give a more well-rounded picture on what keeping the child could entail and giving a greater context to the answers and recommendations than what I currently see portrayed. For adoption they give adorable stories of love and sacrifice. For the budding single-parent household they give cold hard statistics. There are few stories of people keeping the child and what worked for them and what didn't. There's little anything pragmatic for them to grasp on. Plus I think there's another message given (without generally meaning to) by these stories for the mothers who do decide to keep their children: They were selfish or didn't love the child enough or weren't willing to sacrifice. The usual coined answer I hear about why someone choose to adopt out is that someone's mother loved them so much that they gave them a better home for them to live in. It leaves a flip, unspoken message that the mother kept the kid because they just couldn't do the right thing and let them go. I'm ashamed to say that's kind of what I believed of my own mother for a long time (till I heard the full story).  And I don't think that first message is false...I think it can be good. But there really needs to be more positive messages for the second so that there can be greater dignity and love seen in both decisions. 

 

As for me, personally. I sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I got my mother's "perfect family." I would have likely grown up in UT in a large mormon family, with some adorable adoption sealing story to boot. There are LDS things that I currently miss out on (like being sealed to a family). But I enjoy the angle that I get from learning from a very different experience....it gives me a perspective and path quite distinctive from most that I treasure. So I don't regret it at all.   

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 29, 2013 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

My daughter's best friend in college got pregnant from a one-night stand.  She made the very brave decision to give the child up for adoption because she really wanted her baby to have two parents, and there was no chance of the situation with the father of the baby working out. 

 

So this has almost little to do with anything...but that's basically a similar premise to my family...just with the opposite concluding decision. (One night stand, unlikely to ever end up with the father....religious conviction that would have liked a 2-parent household for the child, etc). I just thought it was a little funny is all. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

I definitely agree that adoption should involve a very realistic picture of all options as much as possible (and the "possible" should be measured by the mother and father's willingness to get that information, not on the convenience of the staff or whatever else).

 

It would be the best way, imo, to remove as many of the regrets as can be removed as well as help the child understand it was not a careless (in all meanings of the word) decision by their parents or that their parents were forced into it or anything else that may lead to feelings of insecurity.

[Stone holm]

I've been on sabbatical for well over a week from the internet, so I barely saw this and haven't read anything else from this thread. I was almost adopted out as a child. Adoption fell through and my mom does not have the greatest feelings about how it's portrayed (not so much the pressure, but the ease it is to go through and arrange a good adoption).

 

My thoughts are that it should be considered a viable option, and in many cases a good option, but not one to be necessarily pressured on them. I wish they would give a more well-rounded picture on what keeping the child could entail and giving a greater context to the answers and recommendations than what I currently see portrayed. For adoption they give adorable stories of love and sacrifice. For the budding single-parent household they give cold hard statistics. There are few stories of people keeping the child and what worked for them and what didn't. There's little anything pragmatic for them to grasp on. Plus I think there's another message given (without generally meaning to) by these stories for the mothers who do decide to keep their children: They were selfish or didn't love the child enough or weren't willing to sacrifice. The usual coined answer I hear about why someone choose to adopt out is that someone's mother loved them so much that they gave them a better home for them to live in. It leaves a flip, unspoken message that the mother kept the kid because they just couldn't do the right thing and let them go. I'm ashamed to say that's kind of what I believed of my own mother for a long time (till I heard the full story).  And I don't think that first message is false...I think it can be good. But there really needs to be more positive messages for the second so that there can be greater dignity and love seen in both decisions. 

 

As for me, personally. I sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I got my mother's "perfect family." I would have likely grown up in UT in a large mormon family, with some adorable adoption sealing story to boot. There are LDS things that I currently miss out on (like being sealed to a family). But I enjoy the angle that I get from learning from a very different experience....it gives me a perspective and path quite distinctive from most that I treasure. So I don't regret it at all.   

 

 

With luv,

BD

Gave you a bump on this. It gets to the heart of the issue which is not about whether adoption is good or bad, but whether an ideologically driven policy should be applied across the board, and whether a birth mother should ever be subjected to a guilt trip in order to induce an adoption.

[adoptednz]

Um? This whole thread is about the reality that every young mother (who does not wed the father of the child) is asked to give up the child for adoption. That is the church process... recommend marriage first and if that doesn't work encourage adoption.

 

Not sure it has anything to do with finances... maybe it does. 

 

I would consider the above to be religious coercion - if one's church recommends a certain action, then one can feel ungodly if one doesn't take that action.

[adoptednz]

Welcome... Im from NZ to. That was an excellent post!!

 

Thanks Bikeemikey - I think Anne Else is an excellent writer when it comes to adoption - she has a book called "A question of adoption" which you might be able to find in a NZ library.  

[adoptednz]

I've been on sabbatical for well over a week from the internet, so I barely saw this and haven't read anything else from this thread. I was almost adopted out as a child. Adoption fell through and my mom does not have the greatest feelings about how it's portrayed (not so much the pressure, but the ease it is to go through and arrange a good adoption).

 

My thoughts are that it should be considered a viable option, and in many cases a good option, but not one to be necessarily pressured on them. I wish they would give a more well-rounded picture on what keeping the child could entail and giving a greater context to the answers and recommendations than what I currently see portrayed. For adoption they give adorable stories of love and sacrifice. For the budding single-parent household they give cold hard statistics. There are few stories of people keeping the child and what worked for them and what didn't. There's little anything pragmatic for them to grasp on. Plus I think there's another message given (without generally meaning to) by these stories for the mothers who do decide to keep their children: They were selfish or didn't love the child enough or weren't willing to sacrifice. The usual coined answer I hear about why someone choose to adopt out is that someone's mother loved them so much that they gave them a better home for them to live in. It leaves a flip, unspoken message that the mother kept the kid because they just couldn't do the right thing and let them go. I'm ashamed to say that's kind of what I believed of my own mother for a long time (till I heard the full story).  And I don't think that first message is false...I think it can be good. But there really needs to be more positive messages for the second so that there can be greater dignity and love seen in both decisions. 

 

As for me, personally. I sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I got my mother's "perfect family." I would have likely grown up in UT in a large mormon family, with some adorable adoption sealing story to boot. There are LDS things that I currently miss out on (like being sealed to a family). But I enjoy the angle that I get from learning from a very different experience....it gives me a perspective and path quite distinctive from most that I treasure. So I don't regret it at all.   

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Great post, Blue dreams.

 

As for this:

 

Plus I think there's another message given (without generally meaning to) by these stories for the mothers who do decide to keep their children: They were selfish or didn't love the child enough or weren't willing to sacrifice.

 

your poor mum might have been condemned either way - eg if one keeps their child, one is considered selfish for doing so; if one relinquish one's child, one is considered selfish for doing so.   Also, even with those bmothers that are praised for choosing adoption, there is often a patronising undertone eg "our children's bmothers selflessly realised that they weren't capable to parenting" (though one wonders how much "help" they had to come to that "realisation").  

[BlueDreams]

Great post, Blue dreams.

 

As for this:

 

Plus I think there's another message given (without generally meaning to) by these stories for the mothers who do decide to keep their children: They were selfish or didn't love the child enough or weren't willing to sacrifice.

 

your poor mum might have been condemned either way - eg if one keeps their child, one is considered selfish for doing so; if one relinquish one's child, one is considered selfish for doing so.   Also, even with those bmothers that are praised for choosing adoption, there is often a patronising undertone eg "our children's bmothers selflessly realised that they weren't capable to parenting" (though one wonders how much "help" they had to come to that "realisation").  

 

From what I've seen, just about every parenting (especially mothering) decision is often scrutinized or found wanting depending on the group of people scrutinizing their decisions. Whatever society we come from, often has a list of contradictory or potentially painful ideals that we are likely to fail at some point. And it doesn't take someone blatantly saying it for them to feel that pressure or unintended message. Whether to stay at home or not, how many children, when to have them, how to raise them, etc. In general, I think it better to be supportive and a source of help when needed.

 

As for my mother, I have little knowledge as to how she felt minus the fact that she doesn't have the most pleasant sentiments about the process that took her to adoption services in 2 different states 1,500 miles apart looking for that illusive perfect fit for her daughter. She found it, and then the services lost the papers and they got another kid. Some glitch kept me in my house and it was strangely comforting. It was like a little nod that here was where I needed to be. It's been messy and at times difficult for my fam... and it's overall been worth it.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 30, 2013 by BlueDreams

[strappinglad]

Number of adoptions per year in the US = about 130,000

Number of abortions per year in the US = about 1,200,000

Seems like any undue religious pressure that exists is not very effective.

Also, about 40% of adoptions came through the foster care system. Does that mean that those children were already in the care of the State ?

[BlueDreams]

Buzzard

And there is a reason for that. The odds of a good outcome for a child raised by an unwed mother, even with family support, are so long as to almost be anecdotal. 

 

 

Ironically I am taking grad school right at the place my mother entered 25+ years ago to try and give me up. The world has a weird way of coming full circle. You mentioned that the good stories for those that remain with the single-parent or other households are far and few between to the point of being anecdotal. In my own household, I won't sugar coat and say it was a bed of roses. But it's not a doomsday toll for most the kids. It's just not what I've seen, even in my household that had a number of problems with it. Of the 4 siblings who were born to (3 different) unwed mothers: all of us at least started college. 3 of us are active in the church. 1 is planning for a mission, 1 has already gone. 1 has had minor probs with an eating disorder, one's made choices that aren't the best, IMO....but not the worst either. And 2 of us have no major psychological, emotional, or physical issues that would really set us apart from the rest of the population. What made the difference was the level of stability, support, and general environment available to each kid. 

 

Statistically, there are poorer results, but statistics are often...pliable. For example stats quoted (supporting adoption/2-parent households) will usually mention a comparison without giving an actual number, such as indicated in this article here. So the amount of children effected by the worst results are often still a minority of children found in the worst single parent households (ones with minimal stability, stress indicators, risky behavior by parents, abusive situations, etc). 

 

There is plenty of room for successful parenting/child outcomes within these situations and the results per household will greatly diverge based on their capacity to give this. There could be more services to help give this opportunity a greater fighting chance. I think it's good that there are great services to help facilitate and promote marriage and adoptions. I agree that either one is most likely better options. But there also needs to be space to help promote healthier family relationships period where it's unlikely these are in the immediate future for these families. It's not a far away dream. It's very feasible. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[adoptednz]

Number of adoptions per year in the US = about 130,000

Number of abortions per year in the US = about 1,200,000

Seems like any undue religious pressure that exists is not very effective.

Also, about 40% of adoptions came through the foster care system. Does that mean that those children were already in the care of the State ?

 

 

I personally am sick and tired of the abortion vs adoption comparison. 

 

I note that you don't compare abortions vs women with unplanned pregnancies who KEEP their babies - in fact, the vast majority of people who consider abortion and decide against it end up raising their child. 

 

The problem with the direct abortion vs adoption comparison is that it sends a message of "hey if you don't want your kid, instead of aborting it have it adopted" which is a very simplistic interpretation of why women do consider abortion. 

 

There are two processes that a woman goes through with an unplanned pregnancy:

 

1)  Whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

 

2)  Whether to parent or consider adoption.  This is often after a consideration of what resources are available and also depends on the advice one receives which is really why the best type of counselling is one where the woman is treated as a person first.

 

Btw though I don't know my bmom due to her early death, there is a lot of evidence to sugest that abortion wouldn't even have crossed her mind.  Yes it was illegal but was actually not hard to get and relatively safe in the city of my birth. 

 

Also, as much as I dislike the "Missing Piece" document that I attached, the author did have a good grasp on the thought processes of many women (which is why his manipulative recommendations have been so successful).   Agencies also understand those thought processes - that is they know that the first consideration is between abortion and raising the child and the majority who reject abortion end up raising their child.   The agencies and adoption (coun)sellors know that they need to reform the thinking of women to get them to consider adoption.

It is also spirtually dangerous for both mother and child for counsellors to make it a direct choice between abortion and adoption and leaving out the option of parenting.  I

 

As an adoptee, when one has been on forums as long as I have, one constantly hears refrains of "Just be grateful, you could have been aborted" or even "you should be thankful that your bmother gave you life".  It is insulting to the adoptee and it is often insulting to their birthmother who might not have even considered abortion. 

 

 

[Stone holm]

I personally am sick and tired of the abortion vs adoption comparison. 

 

I note that you don't compare abortions vs women with unplanned pregnancies who KEEP their babies - in fact, the vast majority of people who consider abortion and decide against it end up raising their child. 

 

The problem with the direct abortion vs adoption comparison is that it sends a message of "hey if you don't want your kid, instead of aborting it have it adopted" which is a very simplistic interpretation of why women do consider abortion. 

 

There are two processes that a woman goes through with an unplanned pregnancy:

 

1)  Whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

 

2)  Whether to parent or consider adoption.  This is often after a consideration of what resources are available and also depends on the advice one receives which is really why the best type of counselling is one where the woman is treated as a person first.

 

Btw though I don't know my bmom due to her early death, there is a lot of evidence to sugest that abortion wouldn't even have crossed her mind.  Yes it was illegal but was actually not hard to get and relatively safe in the city of my birth. 

 

Also, as much as I dislike the "Missing Piece" document that I attached, the author did have a good grasp on the thought processes of many women (which is why his manipulative recommendations have been so successful).   Agencies also understand those thought processes - that is they know that the first consideration is between abortion and raising the child and the majority who reject abortion end up raising their child.   The agencies and adoption (coun)sellors know that they need to reform the thinking of women to get them to consider adoption.

It is also spirtually dangerous for both mother and child for counsellors to make it a direct choice between abortion and adoption and leaving out the option of parenting.  I

 

As an adoptee, when one has been on forums as long as I have, one constantly hears refrains of "Just be grateful, you could have been aborted" or even "you should be thankful that your bmother gave you life".  It is insulting to the adoptee and it is often insulting to their birthmother who might not have even considered abortion.

Agree. If they want to lower the abortion rate, they need to focus on birth control and planning. The secondary should be to make sure the first time unwed mother has plenty of options to choose from. Am growing tired of the religious/ political ideology driving some of these policies.

[strappinglad]

The point was not to compare but to show that religious influence is miniscule compared to secular influence. Also, my last question still needs answering.

[toon]

There are parents who through brain damage (sometimes their own fault, sometimes no fault of their own) or never having the mental or emotional capacity to begin with are not capable of being functioning parents.  Some would treat their children like dolls or not even be able to change a diaper or feed an infant.

 

The idea that it would be better to care for such children by caring for their parents at the same time while leaving the children in the care of the parent as the primary caregiver....it just doesn't work.  Just because someone is capable of getting pregnant doesn't mean they can be a capable parent.

 

A comatose patient can get pregnant, should we leave the baby in her care as long as we encourage her to love the baby as much as possible and are there to help when needed or would it be better to remove the child and give the baby to parents who could actually hold and love it and feed it and clothe it and educate it?

 

Both of our daughter's birth parents suffer from serious mental illnesses and drug addictions.  She was removed from the birth mother's custody after the birth mother, in a delusional state, put her life at significant risk.  (The birth mother had just left the birth father after he had physically abused her and, at the time, was living in a group home for abused women.)  The state, family members, and the Church (even though they were not members) all provided resources and assistance to the birth mother in the reunification efforts.  While the birth father received some assistance, he was in prison for most of the time.  The resources and assistance were not enough, and the state was about to terminate parental rights, when the birth mother finally realized she was not capable and would never be capable of raising the child, that even if she kicked the addiction, she would never get over the mental illness and would always be a risk to her child.  She made the brave and loving decision not to contest the adoption.

[BlueDreams]

The point was not to compare but to show that religious influence is miniscule compared to secular influence. Also, my last question still needs answering.

 

Here's some stats you can peruse: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html. From what I can tell, many were, but a good number were probably already in placement with a family/gaurdian but it was the legal process that often slows it down. The foster care system is meant less for trying to place children and more about finding temporary homes until parents or biological relatives can retake guardianship of their children. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 30, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Ahab]

I've thought about this issue some more and I think it might help if we made clear what type of relationship we're encouraging when we encourage someone to consider giving up their child for adoption, if that's something we would encourage.    There are some forms of adoption that i would and do encourage, but those forms are not what I grew up thinking about as what an "adoption" entails and I know a lot of other people who don't think of that form of adoption as a good thing, either.   ...where the parents are essentially encouraged to abandon one of their children and no longer consider that person as their own child, aside from the fact that the child is still their biological offspring.

 

So let's drop the word "adoption" for a moment and describe the type of familiy relationships we support and would encourage, or maybe instead talk about what we would not encourage.

 

My main argument has been that I would not support or encourage, nor do I believe anyone else should support or encourage, another person to voluntarily give up their rights or responsibilities as a parent.  I do believe there are cases where someone's rights or responsibilities as a parent should be taken away, such as when a parent has shown that they do not value their relationship with their child while not wanting to take care of their child as well as they can, but to actively encourage a parent to voluntarily give up their child or their rights and responsibilities toward that child would be, in my mind, an attempt to destroy that family unit from the top down.

 

As I said before, I would support and encourage other people to try to help raise a child when their natural parents have decided that they just don't want to, but why would anyone (especially a member of our Church) encourage a parent to voluntarily give up their own child?  

 

And please think of yourself as if you are acting in the role of a family counselor speaking to the natural parents of the family you are affecting, the one with the natural child, rather than some other family you're hoping to "create" by the addition of a child which you're trying to encourage the natural parents to give up.

 

I think we're getting our wires crossed, somehow, or at least I hope so, because I'd rather not think that some of you would actually encourage a parent to voluntarily give up their child.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Ahab

[BlueDreams]

So let's drop the word "adoption" for a moment and describe the type of familiy relationships we support and would encourage, or maybe instead talk about what we would not encourage.

.....

As I said before, I would support and encourage other people to try to help raise a child when their natural parents have decided that they just don't want to, but why would anyone (especially a member of our Church) encourage a parent to voluntarily give up their own child?  

......

And please think of yourself as if you are acting in the role of a family counselor speaking to the natural parents of the family you are affecting, the one with the natural child, rather than some other family you're hoping to "create" by the addition of a child which you're trying to encourage the natural parents to give up.

 

So first, what type of family relationships I support and want to encourage. Pragmatically, in the ideal situation I would want an environment that is healthy, stable, well structured, and loving. I'm not super concerned about biology. I want family relationships that are strong. I have little concern about biology on this note, IMO.  I would not encourage behaviors that are likely to harm the child or enforce parenting responsibilities on someone who demonstrates low capacities to manage themselves let alone a dependent. From an LDS perspective, I do think it's better to have the opportunity to be born within the bonds of marriage and sealed into a family. I would want that certainty for a child and parents if at all possible. 

 

As a family counselor speaking to the biological parent(s), my immediate goal would to see where they're at and work from there. I wouldn't feel ethically correct in insisting they adopt, but If it seems like a good option I would think it part of my job to present the needed information and help in exploring the possibility. I would want to know their reasons for both keeping and also putting up for adoption. I would also want them to really look at their personal state, their desire for themselves and their child, and the realistic support of their family system. Basically i would want them to feel as confident and prepared in their decision as possible whatever it is. Encouraging one decision over another would be okay as long as it doesn't run into coercion and work to impose my value system over their own. That's bad counseling IMHO. The effect on the immediate family/support system is one that depends on how well they understand their options and how prepared they are to activate that decision. If done appropriate, either decision will probably be difficult and come up with its own list of practical and emotional concern, yet something that they can be manageable and they would hopefully not regret because they view the choices and actions made as their own. 

 

 

With luv,

BD