Today Oklahoma's new anti-abortion law was temporarily blocked while it is reviewed for constitutionality. In my view, the law is a good one and will be allowed to stand. The Center for Reproductive Rights is arguing to have it struck down. It stands to cut into their profits as abortionists. The Oklahoma law seems to be the bridge that has been needed for a long time. While many people nation-wide are reluctant to completely disallow abortion in favor of maternal right to choose, this law allows the mother to choose, with a caveat.
Before undergoing an abortion, under this new law, a mother would have to have an ultrasound, see the beating heart, and hear about the stage of development of her child. She should know this before terminating a pregnancy. It's a medical fact and shouldn't we all be informed before any surgical procedure?
While this new law is among the strictest in the nation, it makes the most sense. In counseling women who were post-abortion, I have heard many times, "I had no idea what I had done until I got pregnant again. I didn't know that the heart was beating in the first trimester. I didn't know that the baby was fully formed. What did I do?". In abortion, there is as much psychological damage as physical damage -- sometimes more. So making sure that women know what they are doing seems prudent and is in keeping with the overall care of the mother.
When a woman undergoes any medical procedure, her physician is required to describe the procedure and the risks to her. Why should abortion be any different? It's different because given the information and viewing an ultrasound would likely change the minds of many who are considering abortion. This would put a big kink in the budgets of family planning clinics around the country. Some people couldn't afford the new cars and perks. Abortion is big business and big profit. It's less about womens rights and more about selling them the alternative -- an alternative that means some people get wealthy from others' mistakes. Planned Parenthood and The Center for Reproductive Rights have a lot to lose. They're defending their way of life. Now there is an irony.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Adoption Issues - Sandra Bullock Adopts Trans-racially
Just as I blogged about racial and gender preferences and how Americans prefer light-skinned girl babies, Sandra Bullock has adopted trans-racially. She's broken down a number of barriers and adopted an African-American baby boy. Little Louis Bardo Bullock was placed with Sandra and her soon-to-be ex-husband Jesse James three months ago, just prior to the Oscars, where Sandra won the Oscar for Best Actress for her movie, "The Blind Side". Perhaps it's life imitating art, or perhaps Bullock just has a heart for children and identified with the role. In any event, when a celebrity adopts, they tend to get more press and people take notice of what they do. You would think that in 2010, there would no longer be racial barriers, but there are and likely will be for some time to come.
One of my adoptive families has experienced racial prejudice within their community and with teachers of their children. That seems hard to grasp but it happens in America in the 21st century. Kudos to Sandra Bullock for being courageous enough to break through the racial taboos and just be a mom.
I have worked on some high profile or celebrity adoptions and there is always an assumption that high profile couples or even singles have an easier time adopting because they have money, or power, or influence, or all of the above. Sometimes, the exact opposite is true. Ms. Bullock began the adoption process four years ago. That is much longer than most adoptive families wait, depending upon preferences. Gender preferences can lengthen the wait considerably. Celebrities have more to contend with than just the typical home study and background check. They have to locate a birth mother who is willing to keep things quiet. Paparazzi can ruin the experience for a couple who is recognized wherever they go. Open adoptions are certainly possible for celebrity families but it's difficult to maintain a relationship with the birth mother if she is being stalked by the press. There are a host of challenges that typical adoptive families don't face.
Sandra Bullock is a case study in grace. She has had the highs and lows of her lifetime all in a period of a few short months. Without fanfare and without drama, she has handled her husband's infidelity with dignity and resolve. She is a woman who is an example for all women. Her attitude is empowering. Congratulations on your adoption, Sandra, and thanks for showing the world that you are an example of what you said when you accepted your Oscar, "Thank you to the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from". Well said and well done.
One of my adoptive families has experienced racial prejudice within their community and with teachers of their children. That seems hard to grasp but it happens in America in the 21st century. Kudos to Sandra Bullock for being courageous enough to break through the racial taboos and just be a mom.
I have worked on some high profile or celebrity adoptions and there is always an assumption that high profile couples or even singles have an easier time adopting because they have money, or power, or influence, or all of the above. Sometimes, the exact opposite is true. Ms. Bullock began the adoption process four years ago. That is much longer than most adoptive families wait, depending upon preferences. Gender preferences can lengthen the wait considerably. Celebrities have more to contend with than just the typical home study and background check. They have to locate a birth mother who is willing to keep things quiet. Paparazzi can ruin the experience for a couple who is recognized wherever they go. Open adoptions are certainly possible for celebrity families but it's difficult to maintain a relationship with the birth mother if she is being stalked by the press. There are a host of challenges that typical adoptive families don't face.
Sandra Bullock is a case study in grace. She has had the highs and lows of her lifetime all in a period of a few short months. Without fanfare and without drama, she has handled her husband's infidelity with dignity and resolve. She is a woman who is an example for all women. Her attitude is empowering. Congratulations on your adoption, Sandra, and thanks for showing the world that you are an example of what you said when you accepted your Oscar, "Thank you to the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from". Well said and well done.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Adoption Issues - And The Research Shows....
Economists from the California Institute of Technology (CalTech), the London School of Economics, and New York University have conducted a formal study and have discovered what those of us in the adoption field have known for years. It's nice to know that our suspicions are validated! The researchers, in a study that lasted over a five year period, found that the study revealed several distinct patterns.
First, Non-African-American babies are seven times more likely to attract the interest of an American adoptive parent than an African-American baby. Second, female children are more attractive to adoptive parents overall than male children, by more than 33%. Thirdly, gestation comes into play. The interest of an adoptive family will increase with the length of gestation. In other words, children are more desirable if they are due immediately versus earlier in the pregnancy. The desirability of a child decreases after they are born and continues to decrease.
Anyone who works in the field of adoption knows that there is greater demand for girls and that it's harder to place minority children. Ironically, many birth moms do not have ultrasounds prior to choosing a family, so often the gender is unknown at the time of the match. For those waiting for specific genders - always more families waiting for girls than boys - it can be difficult to match when the gender is known in only a small percentage when matching. Of course, many find out later on the gender of the baby they are carrying, particularly if pre-natal care is started later on in the pregnancy. That doesn't help us in the matching process!
I have my own theories, but I would love to know the reason(s)that girls are in higher demand than boys. If you thought about carrying the family name, the opposite should be true. However, that is not the case with adoption. Almost always if an adoptive family has a boy, if they have a preference for their second child, it is for a girl. On the other hand, many adoptive families who have a girl want another girl, rather than a boy. The "ideal" family used to be described as Mom, Dad, a boy and a girl. Not so much these days.
The studies have shown that American parents pursuing adoption tend to avoid taking African-American babies and boys. When ultrasounds are done, boys are more easily identified (sometimes it's not easy to identify whether the child is a girl or a boy with undescended testes), so we see more identified boys or unidentified gender babies even when ultrasounds have been done. More irony - there is a higher demand for girls, but it's easier to identify boys. On top of that, more boys are being placed than girls and perhaps that equates to more boys being born than girls, since much of the time birth moms make the choice to make an adoption plan before they know the gender. An old wives tale says that "In a time of war, more baby boys are born to replace those males lost in battle". While we can wonder how Mother Nature would know that, it seems to ring true if you look at the birth rates. So we have more baby boys and minority babies, while the demand is for the opposite.
So, hats off to the researchers who found this phenomenon to be true. I'm going to e-mail them and ask why it's true! For those who are waiting for a specific gender baby, particularly girls, -- this is why it takes more time to find them.
First, Non-African-American babies are seven times more likely to attract the interest of an American adoptive parent than an African-American baby. Second, female children are more attractive to adoptive parents overall than male children, by more than 33%. Thirdly, gestation comes into play. The interest of an adoptive family will increase with the length of gestation. In other words, children are more desirable if they are due immediately versus earlier in the pregnancy. The desirability of a child decreases after they are born and continues to decrease.
Anyone who works in the field of adoption knows that there is greater demand for girls and that it's harder to place minority children. Ironically, many birth moms do not have ultrasounds prior to choosing a family, so often the gender is unknown at the time of the match. For those waiting for specific genders - always more families waiting for girls than boys - it can be difficult to match when the gender is known in only a small percentage when matching. Of course, many find out later on the gender of the baby they are carrying, particularly if pre-natal care is started later on in the pregnancy. That doesn't help us in the matching process!
I have my own theories, but I would love to know the reason(s)that girls are in higher demand than boys. If you thought about carrying the family name, the opposite should be true. However, that is not the case with adoption. Almost always if an adoptive family has a boy, if they have a preference for their second child, it is for a girl. On the other hand, many adoptive families who have a girl want another girl, rather than a boy. The "ideal" family used to be described as Mom, Dad, a boy and a girl. Not so much these days.
The studies have shown that American parents pursuing adoption tend to avoid taking African-American babies and boys. When ultrasounds are done, boys are more easily identified (sometimes it's not easy to identify whether the child is a girl or a boy with undescended testes), so we see more identified boys or unidentified gender babies even when ultrasounds have been done. More irony - there is a higher demand for girls, but it's easier to identify boys. On top of that, more boys are being placed than girls and perhaps that equates to more boys being born than girls, since much of the time birth moms make the choice to make an adoption plan before they know the gender. An old wives tale says that "In a time of war, more baby boys are born to replace those males lost in battle". While we can wonder how Mother Nature would know that, it seems to ring true if you look at the birth rates. So we have more baby boys and minority babies, while the demand is for the opposite.
So, hats off to the researchers who found this phenomenon to be true. I'm going to e-mail them and ask why it's true! For those who are waiting for a specific gender baby, particularly girls, -- this is why it takes more time to find them.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Adoption Is Forever
Last week, Nancy Hanson of Tennessee put her 7 year old adopted son, Justin, onto a plane to Russia with no more than a note and a goodbye. Upon landing in Russia, he showed up unannounced at the Child Protection Ministry. This set off an international investigation that may leave in limbo many American families who are already in the process of adopting in Russia. Russia has suspended adoptions to Americans until a new treaty is put into place with the U.S. Ms. Hansen, a single woman, defends her actions contending that the child was violent and she was concerned about her family's safety. The agency that assisted with the placement reported that as recently as February, they had spoken to Ms. Hanson and she had not indicated any problems. Ms. Hanson stated "It wasn't that he was just energetic and wearing us down, it was the violent tendencies and he had to be watched all the time". In my opinion, all children of that age must be "watched all the time". If he had violent tendencies at age 7, this is something that generally can be corrected with therapy.
There are conflicting stories. Ms. Hanson claims that once he learned English, Justin talked about being abused and beaten at the orphanage. Russian officials state that he has told them he was abused by his American family. He stated he was yelled at and his hair pulled. Ms. Hanson felt that the "final incident" that convinced her that she should send Justin back was when she caught him starting a fire with papers in his bedroom. That is a concern, but what child won't play with matches or lighters if they get the chance? They have to be taught not to do those things and this boy never had a chance. I find it telling that he had access to anything that would start a fire or that he wasn't supervised to the point of having time and means to do such a thing. Instead of a learning experience, this became another lesson in abandonment.
The U.S. government is troubled and is doing everything they can to repair the relationship with Russia's Child Protection Ministry and to minimize the damage our citizens have sustained to their reputations. Russians are viewing Americans as monsters who would callously abandon children. Investigators will have to determine if Ms. Hanson committed a crime. In my view, she did. Child abandonment, child endangerment, and many other child welfare laws may have been broken. Beyond that, she has broken a child's heart. Ms. Hanson had many options, including therapy, asking for the intervention of a social worker from the agency, and ultimately could have asked the agency to disrupt the adoption and place him with another American family who had the time and means to deal with the issues he presented. It has been reported that she was trying, at the same time, to adopt another Russian child.
I believe there is more to this story and that there are likely more issues with the mother than with the child. Regardless of whether you give birth or adopt a child, you don't stick a note on their shirt and send them off on a plane alone to face the world. Abandonment is an ugly word and an even uglier concept. This woman obviously did not take her commitment to this child seriously. If our children have problems, we deal with them. If our children are sick, we take care of them. A child so young has so much potential and instead of working with him to make his life better, she sent him packing. I wonder what that child's concept of "family" really is. I wonder how much this incident has harmed him, beyond what has happened to him before. I do believe he needed to be out of that situation. It is obvious he wasn't loved. Today is his birthday. Happy 8th birthday, Justin. Some of us Americans are sorry for what you have had to endure.
There are conflicting stories. Ms. Hanson claims that once he learned English, Justin talked about being abused and beaten at the orphanage. Russian officials state that he has told them he was abused by his American family. He stated he was yelled at and his hair pulled. Ms. Hanson felt that the "final incident" that convinced her that she should send Justin back was when she caught him starting a fire with papers in his bedroom. That is a concern, but what child won't play with matches or lighters if they get the chance? They have to be taught not to do those things and this boy never had a chance. I find it telling that he had access to anything that would start a fire or that he wasn't supervised to the point of having time and means to do such a thing. Instead of a learning experience, this became another lesson in abandonment.
The U.S. government is troubled and is doing everything they can to repair the relationship with Russia's Child Protection Ministry and to minimize the damage our citizens have sustained to their reputations. Russians are viewing Americans as monsters who would callously abandon children. Investigators will have to determine if Ms. Hanson committed a crime. In my view, she did. Child abandonment, child endangerment, and many other child welfare laws may have been broken. Beyond that, she has broken a child's heart. Ms. Hanson had many options, including therapy, asking for the intervention of a social worker from the agency, and ultimately could have asked the agency to disrupt the adoption and place him with another American family who had the time and means to deal with the issues he presented. It has been reported that she was trying, at the same time, to adopt another Russian child.
I believe there is more to this story and that there are likely more issues with the mother than with the child. Regardless of whether you give birth or adopt a child, you don't stick a note on their shirt and send them off on a plane alone to face the world. Abandonment is an ugly word and an even uglier concept. This woman obviously did not take her commitment to this child seriously. If our children have problems, we deal with them. If our children are sick, we take care of them. A child so young has so much potential and instead of working with him to make his life better, she sent him packing. I wonder what that child's concept of "family" really is. I wonder how much this incident has harmed him, beyond what has happened to him before. I do believe he needed to be out of that situation. It is obvious he wasn't loved. Today is his birthday. Happy 8th birthday, Justin. Some of us Americans are sorry for what you have had to endure.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Adoption Issues - We're All Pro-choice
Someone pointed out to me today that we're all pro-choice. Some of us are pro-life and some are pro-death, but we're all pro-choice. We each want our own choice. I worked in Labor & Delivery for seven years. For two of those years, I was a neonatal bereavement counselor. It was my job to go into a delivery room where a woman was either going to give birth to a deceased baby, one that would most certainly expire, or had already expired. It was my job to gently take the baby, give the baby a bath, take footprints and hand prints -- as tiny as they might have been. It was my job to photograph the baby in perspective -- next to a flower or a small reminder of how little that baby was. Then, I would dress the baby in something nice -- often doll clothes since preemies are sometimes no larger than the palm of your hand. The child would then be wrapped lovingly in a baby blanket and presented to the parents, so they could hold, be with, and grieve the loss of their baby. To say it was heart-wrenching is an understatement. I grieved my own losses, particularly my son Cody, who was also born deceased and very premature. I sat with Moms, Dads, Grandparents, and siblings and cried right along with them. So very precious was this life they lost. Anyone who has gone through such a trauma is pro-life. The death of a baby is such a devastating loss. A life unlived. It's so unnatural to be witness to an angel taking flight.
It's interesting that a baby born at 25 or 26 weeks can, with support and care, grow up to live a normal life. And yet, in many states, it is legal to abort a child of that gestational age. If you read the book "Gianna", it will give you insight as to what happens to babies when they are aborted. Gianna is a woman who was actually aborted, and lived to tell about it. After being burned by saline and forced from the uterus, she came out crying. The doctor put her aside, assuming she would die. When she didn't die after an hour, she was finally taken reluctantly to a hospital. She was burned by the saline abortion and because of the trauma and forced prematurity, she suffered cerebral palsy. She was adopted and has lived as full a life as one can with cerebral palsy. She is sharp as a tack. She wrote a book. How can anyone advocate for the right to hurt a child? I've known people in the past who would save a puppy or rescue a kitten and would criticize someone for dumping a litter off the side of the road to die. And yet they advocated for abortion.
If you drink and drive and you run into someone who is pregnant and you kill their unborn child, case law indicates that you can be held accountable for manslaughter and even second degree murder. Yet, if that very same woman continues on down the road to an abortion clinic and allows the life of her child to be taken, we are told, "It's a choice". Not much of a choice for the baby. We have double standards.
Why is it that the very same baby can be viewed as a precious family member and as an expendable nuisance depending upon circumstances? Who should get to play God?
So, when all of this debate in Congress centers around tax dollars (mine and yours) being allocated for abortion at will (which is what the law reads, despite what is being sold to us as a Presidential over-ride), I have to object. I spent too much time comforting those who lost the opportunity to parent. There are too many more who want to parent the unborn who may be, at a cost to us, discarded and thrown in the trash. It's tragic, it's senseless, and it's costing us so much - financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It's like the bumper sticker that says, "Abortion - One dead, one wounded". The mother doesn't walk away unscathed. Often I talk to women who are now considering adoption because they have aborted before and can't reconcile that with their conscience. A woman once told me, "I will never be able to forgive myself and I hate myself for what I did". Post-abortion, women look down at the babies they have and they think to themselves, "That was one of them. What did I do?". Some have a very hard time forgiving themselves. Abortion providers are so quick to identify the problem as "pregnancy tissue" or "products of conception" -- very sterile terms for a beating heart, don't you think? As Americans, we can't claim to the rest of the world to be humanitarians if we are killing our own babies. Yes, that sounds harsh, but isn't that what is happening? There will always be exceptions to every rule, but those should be offered by physicians trying to save a life that may be in the balance. Outside of that, there are better options.
Congressman Bart Stupak sold out. Supposedly a vehement pro-lifer, his vote was the tipping point. I wonder what he was promised by our President in order to get him to reverse his stance, compromise his ethics, and vote for a bill that states abortion should be available to those who want it and should be covered by health care insurance paid for by taxpayers? Back door deals and dirty politics are now the norm. How did we get to the point in this country where the votes of the congressmen who are supposed to be representing the people are bought and sold? And at what price? Very simply - the price of a life. No, make that millions of lives. Innocent lives.
I have seen and attended many births. I have worked in a newborn nursery. I have been present in adoption situations for support during delivery. I've never seen a baby and felt "That one should have been aborted". Not once. Not every baby is what you may consider "perfect". But what I have found is that every baby is perfect for someone. I will never support having my tax dollars or my business' tax dollars go for abortion at will. The fact that this is "the law of the land" -- my land -- is sickening to me. I would love to be able to support our President, but I can't. Mr. Obama claims to be Christian, but supports the right to choose death and wants me to pay for it. I find that hypocritical and offensive. How is that my choice?
It's interesting that a baby born at 25 or 26 weeks can, with support and care, grow up to live a normal life. And yet, in many states, it is legal to abort a child of that gestational age. If you read the book "Gianna", it will give you insight as to what happens to babies when they are aborted. Gianna is a woman who was actually aborted, and lived to tell about it. After being burned by saline and forced from the uterus, she came out crying. The doctor put her aside, assuming she would die. When she didn't die after an hour, she was finally taken reluctantly to a hospital. She was burned by the saline abortion and because of the trauma and forced prematurity, she suffered cerebral palsy. She was adopted and has lived as full a life as one can with cerebral palsy. She is sharp as a tack. She wrote a book. How can anyone advocate for the right to hurt a child? I've known people in the past who would save a puppy or rescue a kitten and would criticize someone for dumping a litter off the side of the road to die. And yet they advocated for abortion.
If you drink and drive and you run into someone who is pregnant and you kill their unborn child, case law indicates that you can be held accountable for manslaughter and even second degree murder. Yet, if that very same woman continues on down the road to an abortion clinic and allows the life of her child to be taken, we are told, "It's a choice". Not much of a choice for the baby. We have double standards.
Why is it that the very same baby can be viewed as a precious family member and as an expendable nuisance depending upon circumstances? Who should get to play God?
So, when all of this debate in Congress centers around tax dollars (mine and yours) being allocated for abortion at will (which is what the law reads, despite what is being sold to us as a Presidential over-ride), I have to object. I spent too much time comforting those who lost the opportunity to parent. There are too many more who want to parent the unborn who may be, at a cost to us, discarded and thrown in the trash. It's tragic, it's senseless, and it's costing us so much - financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It's like the bumper sticker that says, "Abortion - One dead, one wounded". The mother doesn't walk away unscathed. Often I talk to women who are now considering adoption because they have aborted before and can't reconcile that with their conscience. A woman once told me, "I will never be able to forgive myself and I hate myself for what I did". Post-abortion, women look down at the babies they have and they think to themselves, "That was one of them. What did I do?". Some have a very hard time forgiving themselves. Abortion providers are so quick to identify the problem as "pregnancy tissue" or "products of conception" -- very sterile terms for a beating heart, don't you think? As Americans, we can't claim to the rest of the world to be humanitarians if we are killing our own babies. Yes, that sounds harsh, but isn't that what is happening? There will always be exceptions to every rule, but those should be offered by physicians trying to save a life that may be in the balance. Outside of that, there are better options.
Congressman Bart Stupak sold out. Supposedly a vehement pro-lifer, his vote was the tipping point. I wonder what he was promised by our President in order to get him to reverse his stance, compromise his ethics, and vote for a bill that states abortion should be available to those who want it and should be covered by health care insurance paid for by taxpayers? Back door deals and dirty politics are now the norm. How did we get to the point in this country where the votes of the congressmen who are supposed to be representing the people are bought and sold? And at what price? Very simply - the price of a life. No, make that millions of lives. Innocent lives.
I have seen and attended many births. I have worked in a newborn nursery. I have been present in adoption situations for support during delivery. I've never seen a baby and felt "That one should have been aborted". Not once. Not every baby is what you may consider "perfect". But what I have found is that every baby is perfect for someone. I will never support having my tax dollars or my business' tax dollars go for abortion at will. The fact that this is "the law of the land" -- my land -- is sickening to me. I would love to be able to support our President, but I can't. Mr. Obama claims to be Christian, but supports the right to choose death and wants me to pay for it. I find that hypocritical and offensive. How is that my choice?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Adoption Issues - Older Child Adoptions
In the past, most of the adoptions we have assisted with have been for newborns. When the economy went South, we anticipated having more than the average amount of newborn adoptions, simply because birth mothers generally place because they are not in a good place financially and can't manage working and paying for day care for a newborn and possibly other children. That problem would be increased with job losses and the lack of financial support from other sources. However, it hasn't worked out that way, but rather the birth rate has gone down and abortions are up. It's possible that many birth moms who place their infants for adoption start out at a place where they think "Perhaps I can do this" and only find out later in the pregnancy that they can't (father has disappeared or income has changed) and they decide to go forward with an adoption plan. In recent months, knowing that they can't manage because of the lack of a job and the pressures of trying to support kids in the current economic environment, some tend to opt for abortion. All it all, it seems that everyone is being more careful about unplanned pregnancy because of economic hard times. Perhaps that is why the birth rate is the lowest since the Great Depression.
However, we are seeing a trend we didn't anticipate -- the voluntary placement of older children. There are older children in the system and that has always been the case, because they are removed from homes where there is abuse or neglect. They go into foster care until it is decided that they may be adopted. Now we are seeing birth moms who wouldn't normally place their children choose to make an private adoption plan. Financial hardship is affecting already established families in a way we didn't anticipate as well. For a mom to go to work, she needs day care for her children. If she is single and has three or four kids, the cost of day care can be higher than her earnings. Welfare doesn't cover all of their needs. This leaves them with no way out, except to consider placing one or more of their children for adoption, so that they can get on their feet, work, and support themselves and their other children. This doesn't typically happen when there is only one child or the parent is not overwhelmed. This can be a heartbreaking reality for some women. It's not a choice they would normally make, but one they are faced with nonetheless.
Open adoption is more difficult when a child is old enough to remember a parent. On one hand, you don't want them to feel abandoned. On the other hand, they will tend not to adjust and feel a part of a new family if they are waiting for their birth mother to come back for them. It seems cruel to give them that hope when the adoption plan has been made and they will be integrated into a new family. A child of three or four is old enough for an explanation that they can understand. Siblings should be considered as well. Once a child has been allowed to integrate into the new family, then after a period of time, the relationship with the birth mother can be re-established. Of course birth mom and adoptive family should keep in touch in the meantime. It's just important for the child to be allowed to adjust and gain his or her place in the family, so that they feel like a family member, not a guest in someone's home.
Older child adoption is much more complex than infant adoption. A child may need therapy to adjust and accept a new life. While they are adjusting, it's best to move slowly and easily through the changes, rather than rocking their world with a name change or a completely foreign situation. They should be allowed to have their comforts -- their toys and loveys (a blanket, favorite stuffed animal, a pacifier, or whatever they cherish). If their name is to be changed, it should be gradual. Can you imagine going by your name one day and all of a sudden having people call you by something totally different the next? That would be a bit like being in the Twilight Zone. It can be very disorienting for a young child.
For those considering older child adoption, it is a good thing to offer a child a loving, stable home. But keep in mind that it is a gradual adjustment. A psychologist once told me that for every year (or month) that a child has lived outside of your home, it will take them that long to adjust to being in your family once they get inside your home. So for a two year old, that means two years. That's a long adjustment time, but it's realistic. A child under the age of a year will adjust more quickly. A child of three or four will have memories to contend with and insecurities about being moved again. It takes a lot of patience but, for those who have patience to offer, can be very rewarding indeed.
However, we are seeing a trend we didn't anticipate -- the voluntary placement of older children. There are older children in the system and that has always been the case, because they are removed from homes where there is abuse or neglect. They go into foster care until it is decided that they may be adopted. Now we are seeing birth moms who wouldn't normally place their children choose to make an private adoption plan. Financial hardship is affecting already established families in a way we didn't anticipate as well. For a mom to go to work, she needs day care for her children. If she is single and has three or four kids, the cost of day care can be higher than her earnings. Welfare doesn't cover all of their needs. This leaves them with no way out, except to consider placing one or more of their children for adoption, so that they can get on their feet, work, and support themselves and their other children. This doesn't typically happen when there is only one child or the parent is not overwhelmed. This can be a heartbreaking reality for some women. It's not a choice they would normally make, but one they are faced with nonetheless.
Open adoption is more difficult when a child is old enough to remember a parent. On one hand, you don't want them to feel abandoned. On the other hand, they will tend not to adjust and feel a part of a new family if they are waiting for their birth mother to come back for them. It seems cruel to give them that hope when the adoption plan has been made and they will be integrated into a new family. A child of three or four is old enough for an explanation that they can understand. Siblings should be considered as well. Once a child has been allowed to integrate into the new family, then after a period of time, the relationship with the birth mother can be re-established. Of course birth mom and adoptive family should keep in touch in the meantime. It's just important for the child to be allowed to adjust and gain his or her place in the family, so that they feel like a family member, not a guest in someone's home.
Older child adoption is much more complex than infant adoption. A child may need therapy to adjust and accept a new life. While they are adjusting, it's best to move slowly and easily through the changes, rather than rocking their world with a name change or a completely foreign situation. They should be allowed to have their comforts -- their toys and loveys (a blanket, favorite stuffed animal, a pacifier, or whatever they cherish). If their name is to be changed, it should be gradual. Can you imagine going by your name one day and all of a sudden having people call you by something totally different the next? That would be a bit like being in the Twilight Zone. It can be very disorienting for a young child.
For those considering older child adoption, it is a good thing to offer a child a loving, stable home. But keep in mind that it is a gradual adjustment. A psychologist once told me that for every year (or month) that a child has lived outside of your home, it will take them that long to adjust to being in your family once they get inside your home. So for a two year old, that means two years. That's a long adjustment time, but it's realistic. A child under the age of a year will adjust more quickly. A child of three or four will have memories to contend with and insecurities about being moved again. It takes a lot of patience but, for those who have patience to offer, can be very rewarding indeed.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Adoption Issues - Minority Births Trending Upward
Demographics play a big part in adoption. For instance, when we are doing ad placements, we look for areas of lower income because that's where the need for adoption starts. In the current economy, it's not hard to imagine people struggling to support the kids they have, especially with the level of unemployment. So, when an unexpected pregnancy occurs, the options range from parenting to abortion to adoption. If parenting isn't an option due to finances or other reasons, then there is only abortion or adoption. The down sides to abortion are many, from medical complications to the psychological toll it takes on the mother and those around her. Many couples have split up because of abortions. It starts with the stress and ends in a blame game. With adoption, while there is still some grieving, there can be a positive outcome. Giving a baby life is no small miracle.
Demographics also play a big part in the choices adoptive couples make. Some families adopt to complete their family. Those families typically want a child that looks like them and fits nicely into the family. Other families want to save a child. They go to China or Guatemala or adopt a minority baby from the U.S. In a historic trend, minority children are being born at a greater rate than Caucasian infants. In 2008, the most recent figures available, "minority" babies made up 48% of all the births in the U.S. These figures have gone up consistently over the past 40 years. With the upcoming census, we'll likely learn that the minority has become the majority with over 50% of national births occurring to Latino/Hispanic and African-American women. While the rate of minority births has increased so dramatically, the rate of births among Caucasian women is the lowest it has been since the Great Depression. While that seems astounding, we all know what happened at the end of the Great Depression -- The Baby Boom!
What does this mean in the scope of adoption? As an adoption professional, I find that families waiting for Caucasian infants are waiting longer on average than they have in the past. Those who are open to children of minority races tend to have more options and, on average, wait a shorter time. Averages being averages, there are always people on either end of the spectrum. Those waiting 18 months are not going to understand why someone else gets chosen in three. Many factors play a part in that from race to common interest or even similarities. The common denominator in all of them is that the birth mother makes the choices. An adoption professional gives choices, but doesn't make the choice for the birth mother. So, while families wait, they don't get chosen in order. The positive aspect of that is that when a family is chosen by a birth mother, she's choosing them for a reason and that reason is what bonds her to them more closely than if she were just told "This is the family who will adopt your baby". The failure rate of placements goes down as the birth mother's choices go up.
In adoption, there are a preponderance of families waiting for Caucasian infants. And now, there is a preponderance of minority babies. So that leaves people waiting and that's never easy. As an adoption professional, it makes my job tougher because you can't please all the people all the time. As much as we try, the tools we are given are "mismatched". I would never advise someone to adopt a baby of another race unless they were fully prepared to do so. Perhaps your adoption journey brings you full circle and you feel like you can open up to other races. Perhaps not. I believe that when a child can be placed with families that include their own race, or at least exposed to others of their race on a regular basis, that's helpful for their sense of belonging and familial culture. However, trans-racial adoption can be a beautiful thing as well. The more open to different ethnic backgrounds and races we are, the more potential matches we can make with birth parents and adoptive parents. Until the ratio of adoptable babies of any race is comparatively the same as the available adoptive parents of that race, there will be some families waiting longer than others.
Demographics also play a big part in the choices adoptive couples make. Some families adopt to complete their family. Those families typically want a child that looks like them and fits nicely into the family. Other families want to save a child. They go to China or Guatemala or adopt a minority baby from the U.S. In a historic trend, minority children are being born at a greater rate than Caucasian infants. In 2008, the most recent figures available, "minority" babies made up 48% of all the births in the U.S. These figures have gone up consistently over the past 40 years. With the upcoming census, we'll likely learn that the minority has become the majority with over 50% of national births occurring to Latino/Hispanic and African-American women. While the rate of minority births has increased so dramatically, the rate of births among Caucasian women is the lowest it has been since the Great Depression. While that seems astounding, we all know what happened at the end of the Great Depression -- The Baby Boom!
What does this mean in the scope of adoption? As an adoption professional, I find that families waiting for Caucasian infants are waiting longer on average than they have in the past. Those who are open to children of minority races tend to have more options and, on average, wait a shorter time. Averages being averages, there are always people on either end of the spectrum. Those waiting 18 months are not going to understand why someone else gets chosen in three. Many factors play a part in that from race to common interest or even similarities. The common denominator in all of them is that the birth mother makes the choices. An adoption professional gives choices, but doesn't make the choice for the birth mother. So, while families wait, they don't get chosen in order. The positive aspect of that is that when a family is chosen by a birth mother, she's choosing them for a reason and that reason is what bonds her to them more closely than if she were just told "This is the family who will adopt your baby". The failure rate of placements goes down as the birth mother's choices go up.
In adoption, there are a preponderance of families waiting for Caucasian infants. And now, there is a preponderance of minority babies. So that leaves people waiting and that's never easy. As an adoption professional, it makes my job tougher because you can't please all the people all the time. As much as we try, the tools we are given are "mismatched". I would never advise someone to adopt a baby of another race unless they were fully prepared to do so. Perhaps your adoption journey brings you full circle and you feel like you can open up to other races. Perhaps not. I believe that when a child can be placed with families that include their own race, or at least exposed to others of their race on a regular basis, that's helpful for their sense of belonging and familial culture. However, trans-racial adoption can be a beautiful thing as well. The more open to different ethnic backgrounds and races we are, the more potential matches we can make with birth parents and adoptive parents. Until the ratio of adoptable babies of any race is comparatively the same as the available adoptive parents of that race, there will be some families waiting longer than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)