Why the assumption that adoptive parents are less abusive?

SO many people? Your the only one that I know that's ever made that assumption from my knowledge. How many is "so many"? 2? 5? 100? I never liked algebra. I don't like variables.

Adopting parents can become abusive just as bio families can be. They can also be loving, caring and supportive - just as bio families can be. I think the "assumption" is that families in general, adoptive or not, or loving and caring. And, that's a pretty good assumption too. dont cha think?

People assume that background checks would reveal folks that would likely abuse. I think you can reasonably assume that there will be fewer abusers (arrest records would weed some of them out), but to presume that adoptive parents won't abuse your child is not reality. For one thing, background checks don't go far enough. I had far more screening to get a job than most a-parents get. Some people have no history of abusing children because they haven't had a child available to them to abuse (same with natural parents).

As to the other poster's complaint, some parents adopt because it is expected of them if they can't punch out their own kids. They likely would have abused kids born to them naturally. The wife maybe didn't want children and the husband did.

pARENTS are often influenced by their own childhoods. They may not want to be abusive but they may be. Sometimes what is considered abusive changes over years as well. Whether natural parents or adoptive parents, they can be abusive. I don't think they adopt to be abusive, but they may not be able to handle some things as an adotive parent, just as some natural parents may not wish to be abusive. Alcoholism makes more abuse.

People can be church-going people and can still abuse kids, in all ways. There are no guarantees and sometimes people are shocked by who abuses.

Just hope that people get help if they are abusive or that family members notice and stop them or intervene.

Actually there is a study that has been done. That children living with non-blood related people are at higher risk of being abused. Though it seemed to me this particular study intentionally left out those who also are non-blood related....adoptive parents. I wonder why? Maybe it would hurt the adoption industry/business? No one has a crystal ball and can predict the future behavior of adults towards children, nor can a homestudy. Adoption does not guarantee a better life, nor better parents...just a different life and different people replacing the original parent/s. People who adopt are no more perfect than any other human being. People who adopt also have problems...just like the rest of us.

@Rumour you say "even though adoptive parents have to go through a lot more to become parents in the first place, their motivation for getting the children are not always pure." What exactly is that suppose to mean? I am an adoptive parent and I find your comment quite offensive.... and you also say you know people who "bought their babies on the black market". Last I heard that was illegal, and you are just as guilty as they are for not reporting them to the proper authorities for knowing what they were doing...for someone who has the opinions that you do on adoption, I would think that you would have jumped on the opportunity to report them. Just sayin

I don't assume that. Maybe some. But the way they probably see it, is that most adoptive parents, wait and wait. They really want a child. So they proabably assume that since they want it so much more that they are less likely to be abusive?. Biolgical parents can me just as loving an not as abusive at all.

I don't know. Maybe some people don't know how to read OR,

Perhaps some need to be loyal to the traditional (easy on the head) analysis - where bad biology and/or orphanage syndrome made it impossible to love and nurture these adoptees. In any case,

1. Colorado, 1996, David Polreis (two years old) was beaten to death, ninety percent of his body was covered in cuts.

2. Vermont, 1998, Logan Higginbotham (three years old) died of head injuries.

3. New Jersey, 2000, Viktor Matthey (age six) was locked in a pump room, died of hypothermia.

4. Indiana, 2001, Luke Evans (one years old) died of massive head injuries.

5. New Jersey, 2001, Jacob Lindon (five years old) died from head injury and burns.

6. 2003, Jessica Albina Hagmann (two years old) was smothered to death.

7. Ohio, 2003, Liam Thompson (three years old) died from scalding.

8. Illinois, 2003, Alex Pavlis (six years old) was beaten to death.

9. Maryland, 2005, Dennis Merryman (eight years old) died from starvation.

10. North Carolina, 2005, Nina Hilt (two years old) beaten to death.

11. Utah, 2008, Nikolai Emelyantsev (one years old) died from head fracture.

12. Pennsylvania, 2009, Nathaniel Craver (seven years old) was beaten to death.

You need to define 'abusive' first.

Although it may or may not be true, I believe the assumption is that way because adoptive parents ALWAYS WANT to have children where as biological parents dont always want to have children but then do, if they didnt we wouldnt have adoption in the first place. Secondly I think it is because the adoption screenings people assume that if they've been approved for adoption they MUST be nonabusive good people. I am not saying I agree or disagree but that is why I think that assumption is out there

I imagine this is a common assumption because adoptive parents always elect to have children, and need to be approved by an adoption agency before they can.