Why do people say they couldn't be foster parents but accept legal risk private placements of infants?
I've heard from a number of people that they couldn't be foster parents or adopt from foster care because they'd get too attached to the child, and fear letting them go. (Children legally free for adoption aren't usually mentioned, and the people who say this may not be aware there's a difference.)
Yet these same people turn to domestic infant adoption, and match with an expectant mother either before birth or before the revocation period for her termination of parental rights expires... meaning they're taking the baby at legal risk, and the mother still has every right to decide to parent.
Why does taking an infant being adopted privately at legal risk feel different from being a foster parent? Aren't the essentially the same thing, when you get right down to it? Even if you hope to adopt in both cases, how is it different in terms of attachment/risk?
Is it just an excuse not to research foster care or foster care adoption? I realize that's very possible, but the less cynical part of me hopes there's actually a good reason that I'm just failing to understand.
Why do people who don't think they could be foster-adopt parents because of the risk of attaching to a child and then losing them, but feel they can take a legal risk placement in domestic infant adoption, or match pre-birth? What feels so different about it?
Randy2009-02-01T09:36:46Z
Favorite Answer
I think, as you have already alluded to, the big problem is that people get the terms confused and don't really understand the process when it comes to adoptions from foster care. They automatically assume that adoptions from foster care = temporary or somehow risky and problematic without understanding that the children for adoption through that process are not "foster children" in the original sense of the term.
I think there is also that level of "hope" involved. With being a foster parent, when you really want to adopt, you know that it will be temporary (to varying degrees) and people worry about being attached to the child that will eventually leave. At the same time though when they are trying to adopt in the forms of adoption you mention they glom on to that "hope" that things will work out. In the majority of cases it does too which only perpetuates the problem.
I would never - ever - rail against an adoptee. How is it the child's issue - at all? I only express my opinions to adopters that ask. But I don't hold grudges. I'm just not a fan of international adoptions (babies or otherwise) only for one reason. There are thousands and thousands of kids - right here in the USA - that want and need forever families too. I have nothing against kids that were adopted from abroad. I'm glad they are being adopted. But in most countries - statistics that aren't shared by agencies - show that there are enough people to adopt them in their own countries, with China being the only exception. But lets face reality - Domestic adoptions within the host country aren't as profitable as international adoptions. India for example has a 10x higher international adoption rate then domestic. Why? Only answer I can think of is that the Indian government knows they can "inflate the costs" and get more income. They would have a hard time justifying inflated costs to their own citizens. I just don't understand why adoptive parents look internationally - first. Maybe the agencies convince them that it's cheaper, and more needed? To me that would be the ONE logical reason. Agencies don't (can't) make money from Foster care - so they take that option right off the table. I also wonder if foster care is somehow put-down, dismissed, or discredited by the agents to the parents? Why else would someone adopt an older Russian child, for example, that is age 5 and over instead of looking here at home? What makes the parents think these kids won't have the exact SAME developmental issues as kids from foster care?? The fact is, parents get LESS reliable history about the child's needs from international adoptions then they would from foster care. At least from foster care - the adoptive parents are provided with a full case history. They'd KNOW right up front what the child's needs are going to be. Do International adoptions mask or erase such things (at the source?) from the records in order to make the child more desirable. (or 'marketable' it would seem).
Where I live, the foster agencies tell you not to go into foster care to adopt, because the GOAL of foster care is to reunite parents and children in the end. There are children who are/become adoptable, but most foster agencies aren't adoption agencies, and therefore only act to place children temporarily. Foster children also get the stigma of being "damaged" because they had bio parents who the state decided were unfit.
Friends of mine are foster parents, and they are always upset when a child is returned to an unfit home. One of their foster children have been sent back and returned three times, and the state still won't terminate the parents rights (they send them to rehab, then send them home, give them their child back, and they go right back to the crack house!). While there are tons of excellent foster children out there looking for a permanent home, I think the children who act out have also turned a lot of people away from them all. My friend had one 9 year old child who would cut up her clothes and break everything he could get his hands on. I personally wouldn't want to deal with that, so I can understand why many people are afraid to look into this route.
In adoption, there are contracts, promises, and other things (even though they're aren't legally enforced right away). It is very different emotionally. You aren't playing second fiddle to an unfit parent that the child remembers. And while you have to worry about the b-mom changing her mind, it's not the same as knowing that the parents are working to get the child back (as is the case with foster care).
I do also believe a large number of parents want newborns as well, for whatever reason. Maybe they feel that there's more bonding and therefore less emotional damage done to the child. However, if I were a b-mom in an adoption situation, I would want to have a family picked out and ready before the baby arrived, so I don't fault them on that.
Per-birth matching gets a lot of publicity. (Besides its illegal in Aust. considered unethical.) That could be a contributing factor. After all how many movies are made about a kid being adopted from foster care...
I can understand a couple that have never parented children hesitating to parent kids on temp basis. I feel you need some parenting skills to deal with things that crop up with a child being taken from their parents and placed into another home overnight.
Domestic foster to adopt is conducted differently here. There are different approaches with a dept in Child protection to deal with it. So even though both our children came to us before they were 12 months old through adoption, they still had a period of time in foster care.
The main difference I see is that when a child is placed in our home, even though the legal adoption isn't finalized for months later we aren't put in a position of the child's birth family still being able to change their mind about adoption. (And if goes to court if the father hasn't shown up, he has the same rights as her if he's identified... after social services tries to track him down, and he's still not around then his rights are terminated due to abandonment. It can also happen in a case of a baby being left in a public place. All done before we are contact.) That time is long past by the time we receive a phone call to ask if we will accept placement.
Until recently they wouldn't allow a couple in the adoption pool to foster kids. I know many adoptive parents that wanted to foster but we're not allowed to.We we're even being offered to become permanent foster carers. (At times these children have been adopted by their foster families.) After all the assessments which we had to more than foster parents have too.
A few decided to protest big time about it and finally they're being heard and can be assessed for fostering as well. So I'm wondering if can be like that in the US in some states too.
I think it would probably partly be due to the expected outcome when getting into the situation. I've never considered infant adoption so I can't speak 100% on that. I do plan on adopting from foster care but could never do foster to adopt.
From my thought process going into an infant adoption everyone has the shared expectations that it will end in adoption and not the child being kept by the parents. Even the biological parents go into it with the acceptance that it will end in adoption. Yes the biological parents can change their mind in the end but generally all are in the arrangement thinking it will end the same way.
With fostering to adopt your goal is to have the child reunited with the biological family. While you may want to adopt the child the system is working to place them back with their families and as a foster family you are expected to support that from what I understand. I would find it too difficult to have a child in my home for months to years, helping them through their trauma only to have them returned to their biological families. Selfish as that may seem you cannot help your emotions.
Not sure if that makes complete sense or not. It did in my head but its nearly 230am here. I'd also imagine the time frame for attachment would be different. With infant adoptions a few months of expecting the birth and then a few days/weeks where the family can change their mind vs months/years in foster to adopt.