Some thoughts on different realities of adoption, from very different points of view
Much too often, in discussions on adoption, everyone seems to know very quickly what adoption is all about. And as if there was one legitimate view worth being promoted at any cost, some of the debates easily turn into an endless repetition of assumptions, clichés and mutual accusations.
What is forgotten much too often is this: The realities of the experience of adoption are so wide apart that they are beyond comparison; this difference needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. I sometimes think talking about adoption is comparable to a situation requiring intercultural competence.
The following list of links offers a kaleidoscope of perspectives which all show, in their own special way, an approach to the reality of adoption.
Adoption is often considered something that needs an institutional change:
Adoption reform – so many eloquent people have been trying hard for a long time to show why it is badly needed; see this quote (from a post here):
Adoption and the adoption industry needs to clean up its act, get real and begin to be about finding the very best families for the children who have to become adoptees because their parents cannot, should not or will not raise them. It needs to stop being about baby selling, commodification of human lives and filling orders, greed, profit and lies. Easy?? It could be with the right commitment, intentions and goals and a true belief that is is about the best interests of children and not adults.
It is so true to demand the “right commitment, intentions and goals”, and yet, at the same time, try to ask two people what “the best interest of children” is, and you will probably get three answers.
And what about “commitment”? See this really powerful text here, which says:
But when you are working just in your zone and on the issues in front of you, it is easy not to look around and see what the general thoughts are in the adoption galaxy. So I took a peek around the reform community last week and I noticed something that is flawed in reform: Lack of compassion. And that is sad because it is the one place where it should be.
Commitment without compassion – that will not work.
It requires both compassion and commitment to create a setting in which a situation like this is no longer possible – see this quote:
My name is Tarikuwa. When I came to the US five years ago from Ethiopia, my name was changed to Journee Bradshaw. I am trying to raise the funds to go home to see the family I left behind when I was adopted. If you can find it in your heart to help me, I will be forever grateful.
Some may argue this is one in a thousand of cases, one single case where just everything went wrong.
But things aren’t that easy, really.
And this is the part of the kaleidoscope where the (new) family as a whole has their own views.
There are families who deal with the loss of their children, on a daily basis, as a family unit. Take the time to read this post, please; it offers a view of the realities of adoption in some parents’ lives. It is about the question whether or not it makes sense to celebrate “Forever Day”, the day some call “Gotchaday”:
I saw the potential for it not to be a happy day for them. And if we are being perfectly and completely honest, it is hard for the other children to celebrate when they hear comments like, ” My real family is my Ethiopian family. I wish I still lived in Ethiopia; it is better there. I hate this family. I wish you had never adopted me…”
The reality of coping with loss, the reality of building a new family together with a child, is right out there – just as – admittedly – the “miracleofadoption”- promoters’ views and ideas. And this is where I see the part of the adoptive parents within the efforts for reform is mostly motivated, and rightfully so.
If you read German (or be willing to use a translation program), you can find similar thoughts here in this blog post; it includes reflections on the term “best interest of the child”, and how hard it is to know what that is. A quote (my translation):
What if children (especially older ones) do not appreciate life here, cannot appreciate it? [...] some are so traumatized that they cannot make any use of chances offered here. [... ] Adoptions may fail. No one likes talking about it, but PAPs should not rely on the assumption that what they have to offer a child will readily be accepted. [..] To deal honestly with the possibility of such an outcome would be one of the demands for an ethical approach to adoptions.Which, again, leads back to the need for reform and the question where exactly the broken parts of a system are, the system that is, in my opinion, and to use still another quote, worth fixing.
PS: And before this gets lost: Here, again, the link for the Journee Bradshaw /Tarikwa Tigist/ site. ——————— Update, March 1st: Please make sure to read this post, which is giving an introduction as to what “the best interest of children” means by definition.




Thanks for a thought-provoking post. Re ‘the best interests of the child’ – I always believed as a professional worker, as did my colleagues, that it involved not doing anything illegal,anything which would harm a child and everything to give them the very best shot possible at growing up in good health both physical and emotional, despite difficult/abusive/destructive beginnings/background.My consultant also tells me it involves parenting which provides security for a child with boundaries which are neither too lose nor too tight.
Commitment in my view necessarily involves compassion because it doesn’t work without it.
eagoodlife
29. February 2012 at 22:51