Un/Re-adoption in Wasatch

[MiserereNobis]

Perhaps this is better suited for the News section; if so, please feel free to move it, moderators.

I was reading an article in the Atlantic today about parents who give their adopted children up for adoption a second time. It began with a story of a child who is in this situation. She has been with her adoptive family since birth and is now 10 years old. It was strange because at first I thought a child like this must have some issues that the family just couldn't handle. But this is how she is described:

Quote

She gets straight A’s. She loves her parents and her sisters. She grumbles only when her siblings ask her to clean her room. She rarely lies and loves to wear skirts and dresses and listen to music.

Sounds like a good kid, so why are the parents giving her up?

Then we are told:

Quote

But according to the information provided by her parents, “This family has drastically changed their lifestyle and have left their faith and extended family for a quiet, secluded life.” It is their hope that “a different family will step forward who can provide her with the socialization and continued relationship with God that she desires.” After spending her whole life thus far with her family, Reese was being advertised on Facebook and the internet at large as available for re-adoption.

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

Quote

Second Chance Adoptions is a division of Wasatch International Adoption Agency (WIAA), a licensed child-placing agency that operates out of Utah

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this is better suited for the News section; if so, please feel free to move it, moderators.

I was reading an article in the Atlantic today about parents who give their adopted children up for adoption a second time. It began with a story of a child who is in this situation. She has been with her adoptive family since birth and is now 10 years old. It was strange because at first I thought a child like this must have some issues that the family just couldn't handle. But this is how she is described:

Sounds like a good kid, so why are the parents giving her up?

Then we are told:

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

My heart breaks for her, but good riddance to Reese's former family. Tonight I went to "Instant Family" at the movies, and absolutely loved it. It is based on a true story of a couple who decided to adopt, they didn't even need to but were a little older, not a young couple. And so this post made me think of this movie. I hope Reese frinds some happiness. After watching the movie, it's amazing how these poor kids in the foster care system can have any trust, since being moved from place to place. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

......................................

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

We don't actually know the details, even though the entire matter seems rather odd.  Sincere people would never do that.

[Rain]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this is better suited for the News section; if so, please feel free to move it, moderators.

I was reading an article in the Atlantic today about parents who give their adopted children up for adoption a second time. It began with a story of a child who is in this situation. She has been with her adoptive family since birth and is now 10 years old. It was strange because at first I thought a child like this must have some issues that the family just couldn't handle. But this is how she is described:

Sounds like a good kid, so why are the parents giving her up?

I get the impression we are not told a lot of things for privacy reasons even though some of the things shared seemed quite open. This though could really paint a big picture; 

"who can provide her with the socialization and continued relationship with God that she desires."

The family lives in isolation. At 10 this girl could easily have strong feelings in her faith. She may have been part of choosing to be adopted a second time. She may have always had questions about being adopted and many adoped children do. She may worry she won't find her biological parents while in isolation. There is just so MUCH we don't know to make conclusions.

Quote

Then we are told:

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

The article gives no clue to faith of the family. While the business is based in Utah it works nationally and internationally as well.  The only thing that could be taken as a clue is their location, but it could also be because of Utah's adoption laws or even because those in our church had compassion when seeing cases like this all over the world. Really, we have not near enough info to have any idea of the former faith of the family.

Quote

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

I realized as I was reading the article that my extended family has 2 connections with 2nd adoptions.  Sort of.

One of our family adopted a child. A few years later they found they couldn't handle him. He had developed a some behavior issues that may be caused before birth, that they were told was the worse case professionals had seen. Meanwhile, mom and sibling also developed some mental health issues. The family just was no longer equipped to deal with him so he went into foster care that also went badly.

Another family member  adopted siblings who were previously adopted. In that case the children had been abused by the first adoptive family and were no longer allowed to stay with them.

And yes, all 3 of the children are unstable now though I don't know how much was caused by 2nd placements/adoptions and how much was caused by physical concerns in utero, disorders and abuse.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Rain

[CV75]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this is better suited for the News section; if so, please feel free to move it, moderators.

I was reading an article in the Atlantic today about parents who give their adopted children up for adoption a second time. It began with a story of a child who is in this situation. She has been with her adoptive family since birth and is now 10 years old. It was strange because at first I thought a child like this must have some issues that the family just couldn't handle. But this is how she is described:

Sounds like a good kid, so why are the parents giving her up?

Then we are told:

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

Ultimately, and it says this in the article, the "adoptive family no longer wishes to parent them" despite the significant risks of trauma to the children resulting from a dissolved adoption. Tragic.

[rpn]

Unfortunately, there are too many stories of rehoming children like they were puppies.   And often the new home is merely a slave situation (for chores or sex trafficking).  

But as for what you read about the child --- adoption profiles always emphasize the child's strengths and avoids advertising their struggles.

If I personally knew of such an ad, I would report it to the child abuse hotline ASAP.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this is better suited for the News section; if so, please feel free to move it, moderators.

I was reading an article in the Atlantic today about parents who give their adopted children up for adoption a second time. It began with a story of a child who is in this situation. She has been with her adoptive family since birth and is now 10 years old. It was strange because at first I thought a child like this must have some issues that the family just couldn't handle. But this is how she is described:

Sounds like a good kid, so why are the parents giving her up?

Then we are told:

I guess because I spend so much time here I immediately thought of a family leaving the LDS church. The article never says this specifically, but we are told:

I think we can reasonably connect the dots here.

What I don't understand is why a family leaving the LDS church (or any religion) would give up a child as part of that process. It looks like Reese's family didn't see her as part of their "real" family because they didn't offer their other biological children up for adoption.

At the end of the article we are told that Reese was adopted by another family. Perhaps it is for the best, since it is clear that her first family didn't want her. Poor girl.

You conclude poor girl, but maybe she wishes to be re-adopted. We don't know that. We don't know they were LDS, but maybe she wishes to remain LDS, and the rest of the family does not, so she wishes to find a LDS family who would like to raise her. In the end maybe that is best for her. This might hold true for any Christian child whose family decides to leave Christianity or their Church. Would you conclude the same if the family had been Catholic, and decided to become Agnostic/atheist, while the girl wished to remain Catholic? 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Would you conclude the same if the family had been Catholic, and decided to become Agnostic/atheist, while the girl wished to remain Catholic? 

I would think that true loving parents would try a way to figure it out instead of giving their child up for adoption, so yes, I would feel the same way.

[katherine the great]

This is incredibly bizarre to me. Any couple who would just "unadopt" a child that has been theirs for ten years (since birth) is seriously whack. I do understand how a person could relinquish custody of a child if the child's behavior is dangerous or if there are severe mental or physical illness problems the family cannot handle and no support is available. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. I hope the un-adoption was the little girl's idea and I hope she gets the love and support she needs in her new home.

[MustardSeed]

“@

3 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

seriously whack.

I think leaving your extended family and going into seclusion is indication that likely the family is wack.  I mean, sure, walk away from toxic family issues but seclusion?  

Im sure we don’t have all the facts. Someone’s been deeply hurt though.