Question for those who are anti-adoption?

My answer should be taken with a grain of salt...First, I am not completely anti-adoption, but I am not in favour of international/private infant adoption IN GENERAL. I am sure there are exceptions to that rule, however. Also, I am Canadian, and therefore can only speak to the Canadian side of legal guardianship. I have been told anecdotally that the American version is very similar, but I do not wish to engage in an argument where I'm told that as a Canadian, I have no right to an opinion, so I will only speak to how my country does things.

Legal guardianship does not afford permanency, period. Assuming parental rights are terminated, the province is still ultimately "in charge" of the kids, and decisions can be made at any time by the province outside the wishes of the parents who are raising that child. If parental rights are NOT terminated (meaning, parents simply hand over legal guardianship to another family), the parents can still have control, as far getting that guardianship order terminated.

Here's the issue I have with that: In a HWI adoption, there is usually no evidence that the biological parents pose a risk to their children. In this case, the best case scenario would be, in this order: a) the biological parents raising their own child, b) a family member stepping in temporarily, and getting TEMPORARY guardianship, c) a family member getting long-term legal guardianship (with bio-parents still having an option to terminate that agreement, and while maintaining openness, d) a family member adopting the child, while maintaining openness, or e) a "stranger" adopting that child, while maintaining openness*.

For foster kids, it's a different ball game entirely. By the time adoption or legal guardianship would even be tabled, the courts have already determined that the biological parents are a danger to their children, and in most cases, should not have continued contact. Abused children do still want their bioparents. That's a natural thing, because they fear the unknown. Does that mean contact with their abusers should be continued? No, not any moreso than a woman who says she loves the man who beats her senseless should be supported to return to him. It can border on stockholm syndrome. The child is powerless in that situation, emotionally speaking, to make a decision that considers their best interest first.

The reason the province/state steps in to make that decision on behalf of that child is because that child is a minor, and an abused one, at that. They probably have a very skewed concept of love, and what safety and security look like.

In HWI adoption, that child HAS another (theoretically) healthy family who made a "choice". I think legal guardianship in this case is VERY appropriate. But, for foster kids, the opposite is true, and leaving a child with NO safe family, is, in my opinion, a travesty. Particularly since, in a huge number of cases, these children grow to be adults who do not wish to have contact with bio-family. Where does that leave them? Again, NO family.

It should be considered, too, that if legal guardianship was the only option considered, the people who know that child better than anyone could then not be entirely in charge of making decisions for them, as any parent would. So, if a child is struggling at school, and the parent determines that the child needs to switch schools or be home-schooled, for example, it is not possible without the consent of the ministry, who does not know or understand the needs of that child. Corruption and bureacracy are then raising the child without being able to truly consider their needs.

If adoption is appropriate for ANYONE, I'd have to say that it is appropriate for children in care. I'd rather work on open records, to allow those children to access their info at age 18 than try to eliminate the option of a permanent and solid connection for those kids in childhood. Not that a birth certificate isn't important, but an 8 year old is not thinking about their birth certificate--they are thinking about being a "part of" something, and feeling included. I want them to access their info at 18, so I am not detracting in any way from the call for open records, but I think their childhood and what's left of their innocence needs to be protected first, particularly if there are safety/security concerns with them "found".

Adoption should return to being a social service for children. Guardianship does not provide the same protection or permanency for the kids who need it the most. That's my humble opinion.

*By "maintaining" openness, I mean ACTUAL openness, as in, an honest and ongoing relationship with the bioparent(s).

Here we go again...... Look, I hear what your saying about the people working at the adoption agencies should be allowed to make a living...... But its not that simple... If these people were making 10 or 15 bucks an hour, I don't think anyone would have problem with this, But, When these people are making anywhere from 15 - 30 thousand off each child...... That's a problem! And if you honestly think these people care about these kids and truly try to look out for the child's best interest and place them in the best possible home..... Then I have a big bridge I would like to sell you..... Their main goal is to place a child with the couple that will pay the most! Its plain as day.... If adoption is about the best interest of the child and only the child, Then why do people need to make thousands of dollars off every adoption........ This is nothing more than a racket...... A way for certain people to make a ton of money off of selling someone elses child! I would have more respect for these people if they were selling drugs on the street! To get off on selling children...... That's just wrong on so many different levels... The only reason adoption is in place, Is because people are making alot of money off of it..... As I said 300 times before...... Every one gets what they want except the adoptee..... Adoption agencies make their money, Adoptive parents get the kid they always wanted, the adoptee is the only one who has no say in the matter, they don't have a choice, And they don't get to have a opinion on the matter....... Adoptees are forced to live a life others choose for them! Now, How is that a good thing! I could go on and on about this, But whats the point...... Love Few, Hate Many, Trust No One...

This is one of the most interesting questions I've seen answered on here.in a long time. As one with a lot of experience in foster care, some with adoption, and some with legal guardianship I have learned a lot over the years. The one thing I would NEVER do again is Legal Guardianship---It may work great with others but not for me. I would much rather listen to some CW that was misguided rather than a parent that didn't know what day or time of the year they were in. Adoption will always be needed for the kids who Can't go home again---and I DO feel for those children,; even small children experience a loss;,and some of those parents to.

I don't think all adoptions are wrong. I just don't think all adoptions are right. Some are necessary, but lots of things are 'necessary" that doesn't make them great. I needed surgery once. The outcome was good, but I certainly wish I didn't need to have that surgery. That's how i feel about being an adoptee.

I think you and others tend to blend many opinions into one big "anti-adoption" philosophy. That isn't what I see here. I see many variations of beliefs based on personal experience. Be careful about that.

I am an adoptee who is raising two additional kids who are not my own, one who is also an adoptee. I have never felt defensive about the fact that I am raising two kids (related to me) who cannot be with their father. Never, ever have I felt like I was a "baby-stealer." The kids with me have no other option, and nobody on this forum has expressed anything to make me feel like adopting them would be wrong.

I was one of the people back a few months ago who said that not all kids want to be adopted. That is because, in our case, my niece does not want to be adopted. Her mother is dead. She wants to keep her last name, and maintain the identity that she and her brother had when they were a family. At 16 I think she is well old enough to make this decision. This does not mean that I am against adoption. It means in our case, adoption is not the best for these particular kids at this time. That could change. What does frustrate me is how many times I get asked "if" we are going to adopt them or "when" we are going to adopt them. This is asked with the judgement that we are somehow not completely committed to these kids for life...which we are.

I think it is worth taking the time to understand the shades of belief here. It isn't as simple as being for or against.

ETA: that is just my point. There are very few people on here who are against ALL adoptions. Look at the answers. Everyone seems to agree that there are circumstances where it is necessary. To be anti-adoption does not mean that you are against all adoptions. I think 100% that every adoption is tragic. That doesn't mean I can't see that it is necessary in some cases. Sorry if you don't want me to answer your question. But by by your criteria, nobody would be welcome to answer.

Continuing adoption, of any sort, perpetuates adoption of every sort. Despite what some people think, these issues cannot be separated while we continue to use the same language and the same legal structures. In other words, we cannot have ADOPTION of foster children, but not of infants. If we have one, we're likely to still have the other.

I think we can provide children the stable, loving environments they need without changing identity and treating them as property to be owned. It's about creativity, finding a new way forward to solve some of these problems.

Some people on here contend that adoptees know nothing about adoption of foster children. I would counter that adults who were in foster care and who have never been adopted also know nothing about adoption of foster children, and at least adoptees know something about adoption.

I am not anti adoption I just hate coerced, unnecessary, pressured, unethical ones and child trafficking. When it comes to a child who is an orphan or is living with abusive parents that is a different kettle of fish. Abused children need to be removed from abusive situations and placed in a safe environment and orphans deserve a loving family as well.

Looney Tunes has left before. That was not her first time leaving this board. She struggles EVERY YEAR around the holidays. She's a wonderful lady with lots of issues. Issues brought on by aging out in Foster Care. She's a big girl, she handles her issues best she can, and she's allowed to leave if she wants to. No one chased her away deliberately, views are views and she knows what she's getting into by coming here.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION No I don't think ALL adoptions are wrong, I think they suck. There's a difference. I think Foster Care sucks too and so did Looney Tunes. We saw things differently but we both agreed it sucked.

No, adoption shouldn't forever be eliminated, but even foster adoption needs serious reform. There is no reason why a child should need to lose their identity just to gain a family.

I wouldn't mind adoption happening if the legalised lie that it currently is in many places no longer existed. Once everywhere catches up with adoption NOT meaning playing with the BIRTH certificate, then I'd no longer be completely anti-adoption, and would only be anti-unnecessary-adoption. :)

I actually dont have a problem with foster adoption, never have. I dont think it is necessary to ammend most birth certificates, except where a child would be in danger. I think all newborn infant adoption is wrong, international or otherwise.