this one too. How horrible is this. How horrible would you feel if you talked someone into keeping their child cuz its "best" to find out something like this happened later on. I think alot of times its best to let loving people raise the children women dont want or think they can raise for whatver reason. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/999781.html
Please all opinions welcome, maybe you could help me to understand. I just feel like I could have been close to the same situation if I wasnt adopted but who knows.
Hi Bananarama,
It's not ok for anyone to hurt a child, be they adoptive parents, natural parents, or anyone else.
I don't think one can make the assumption that adoptive homes are always the more "loving" people. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. One can not assume that natural families do not love their children either.
To help you understand better, think of children as being meant to be raised with the parents they were born to. If there is any persuading going on, it's to NOT raise their children rather than to raise their own children because the normal course of action is raising one's own children.
For every sad case about a child who is hurt by their parents and others say it wouldn't have happened had they been adopted by someone else (the child might have been better off, they might not have been) there is another case of a child who was adopted and hurt and others are saying they would have been better off with their natural families.
The point is there are no guarantees with anyone. There is no way of knowing who is going to abuse a child before they do it. We cannot take away children before any crime has been committed. Some people who look like perfect parents on paper end up doing horrible things to children. Other parents who may be considered too young or too poor or too (fill in the blank) to be good parents may end up surprising you by becoming excellent parents once given the chance.
Nobody knows that they cannot successfully parent their child until they actually try. Therefore nobody can know that before the child is born.
Again, it is unacceptable to abuse children. There is no excuse for it. However, adoption is not the answer to child abuse nor is it a guarantee of lack of abuse. Hope this helps.
julie j
reunited adoptee
Every person considering relinquishing their child needs to hear the consequences to themselves, their child and the consequences to family dynamics and relationships. Every person considering relinquishment also needs to be told that without a doubt that relinquishment is the lowest of one life and that if they have it in them to rise up and face whatever the circumstance or reason they feel they aren't good enough for their child, then they should do that.
Because for every sad sack story like the above where someone who was talked out of relinquishment, I can give you 98% more examples of the exact opposite where the expectant parents are talked into relinquishing when they rather have parented and been awesome parents.
As the others have said, abuse is not good in ANY situation.
Why do you feel the need to single out those regarding natural families only though? Abuse happens in adoptive and natural families... Adoption certainly doesn't prevent child abuse.
There are sick stories of children who are adopted for sex purposes... is THAT ok in your books?? Obviously not.
Abuse is sick no matter what and no one deserves to be near a child if they are going to abuse them, regardless of who they are.
Thats one of the major flaws when people use terms like "everyone", "every time", "always", "every one" and other such terms. There is always the exception and tragically this seems like just such an exception.
Its not always better for a child to remain with their birth parents and it's not always better for a child to be adopted or in foster care. When it is required though (either way), it's required.
Do you REALLY want to open this can of worms on here? Do you really think that we can't match your horror story for horror story? What about the Russian Adoptees who were murdered? There are whole entire websites devoted to that, and Russia has all but shut down in protest!
And, yes, I think that you are really trying to make someone mad. I think that actually you are trying to make a lot of people mad. Don't be coy! If you are trying to be confrontational, admit it. Otherwise it is just another specious question.
The link you posted was very disturbing, as are the other cases that were posted in response. There are very bad natural parents and there are very bad adoptive parents, some people should not have children regardless of giving birth or adopting them. I think over generalizing is very harmful to everyone.
I agree with you on this. I don't really know what to say though. I mean how could people know how a child is being treated until something public happens? A lot of it will always go unnoticed.
Though if it was my choice, I wouldn't be forgiving about it. When a parent really screws up like that, the kid should be put up for adoption. It's detrimental to the kids to let them stay in that environment.
Yes...its sick just as much as an adoptive parent molesting or raping their child. I won't bother posting tons of cases.
Take a look at what happens to kidnapped children that are violated and then sold to foreigners. Scroll down and read Im a 5 month old prostitute.
http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Prostitution_of_Infants.htm
I don't think that anyone here would argue that a mother should parent no matter what. She shouldn't endanger her child. Children shouldn't be left in situations of abuse and neglect.
The thing is, a woman considering relinquishment isn't by definition dangerous. She may just be young, poor, lacking in support, confused about her options... but just lacking the confidence or the knowledge that she could be a good mother. If more women were encouraged to at least consider parenting their babies, fewer unnecessary separations would happen.
A child can be relinquished for adoption at any time. If in three months, or in a year, the mother still feels she isn't doing an adequate job of parenting, she can place for adoption. There's no time limit.
Once she places, the baby is gone. Forever. If she regrets adopting the child out, she has no recourse.
So if she isn't sure, isn't it better to err on the side of the decision that can be changed if she regrets it, unless the child's safety is at risk?
Saying a mother should CONSIDER keeping her child isn't the same as saying there is NEVER a situation where that separation has to happen. The majority of parents, both biological and adoptive, are not abusive. Why would we assume that any woman in a crisis pregnancy is in the minority of potential abusers? And if we accept that she probably isn't, why wouldn't we encourage her to consider parenting?
I don't think children should stay in unsafe and hurtful situations. But encouraging a scared and confused woman or girl that she has the ability to be a good mother isn't unsafe or hurtful. It's encouraging her to be a GOOD parent.
Parenting doesn't mean a child will be abused, and placing a child for adoption doesn't guarantee the child won't. In my opinion, parenting in safe and loving homes should be encouraged.
It's RIDICULOUS to say that in every situation it's best for a child to stay with his or her biological mother no matter what. In situations like this as in other situations like serious physical abuse, etc., as far as I'm concerned a parent loses their parent card PERMANENTLY! There is no redemption. There is no second chance.
Always always always it should be about what's best for the CHILD & not the adult(s) in the situation! All children deserve loving parents if at all possible.
But you can't assume that adoption always provides the "perfect solution". Adoption doesn't guarantee that a child will automatically find a loving home. There are just as many extreme cases like the ones you've provided links to where adoptive parents have chained, locked up, starved, beaten, and/or sexually abused the children they adopted.
I know. I was adopted by alcoholic parents who believed in corporal punishment, used belts & boards to discipline to the point of causing welts & bruises. Nothing that rose to the level many abused children suffer, but bad enough regardless. And an adoptive mom who promptly disowned me 2 days after my dad died.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/596865.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/418676.html
"U.S. adoption agencies have failed to protect kids and deserve blame, says Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant. She represented Masha Allen, a 14-year-old who told Congress last year that she was sexually abused from the time she was adopted from Russia at age 5."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-10-russia-adoptions_N.htm
It doesn't matter WHO does it - birth parent or adopted parent. It shouldn't happen!
well this is a sad story letting religion be the reason another child dies. i dont know where to draw the line because some religions are to far out and very unsafe for anyone who is sick. but how do you stop it in the name of religion? who knows all i know is that the mother does need mental health check bec there are alot of people out there in the world that should not have kids. i guess unless govt steps up it will continue. but if other people saw how bad this child was it is up to us as a human being to say something.
No, it's not always better and it's not always NOT better and in every situation, society, culture, all walks of life, adopted, biological, or blended families -- you are going to find some really sick people out there.
APs can post links to lots of stories about children being abused/killed/neglected by their parents.
Proponents of family preservation can also do the same with children who are in foster care or are adopted.
Anyone can find something, somewhere to support their view.
And most of the time, the examples are extreme. But in general, what is being presented are truly isolated cases.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I really do think most people do not advocate violence, abuse or neglect of children or adults for that matter.
Want to go toe to toe?
For EVERY incident you can find involving a bio kid I can find one involving an adoptee! Bring it...
QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER TEENS KEPT IN CAGE CAN RECOVER
USA Today
/wkys.com, by Chris Tye (3-9-05)
wkyc.com/news_fullstory.asp?id=31544
He was 17, but slept in a padlocked crib and police say abuse came at the hands of his adoptive parents...Ten years ago, Wilson Sulivan and his wife Brenda adopted a 10-year-old boy...When authorities stepped in, records show the 17-year old regularly wore a diaper and showed signs of starvation-- weighing only 49 lbs at 41/2 feet tall-- and communicates by grunting.
TETHERED BOY'S MOM IS RELEASED
Detroit Free Press, by Jack Kresnak (11-3-99)
Is tying a half-naked disabled child to a plastic bucket with a dog collar and leash, then locking him in a basement room, considered criminal abuse in Michigan? Perhaps not. The boy and his biological brother--both adopted years ago by the woman, a former licensed foster parent, are in foster homes under supervision of the Wayne County Family Independence Agency.
And I'll raise you this little gem!
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton+foster+mother+found+guilty/1013264/story.html
That contradicted testimony from the woman's former live-in nanny, who told the jury the mother had left the boy overnight in an unheated garage wearing only a pull-up diaper.
The nanny said the boy had bruising across his forehead when she found him sleeping on a cement floor the morning before he collapsed.
A foster child who lived in the home while the boy was alive told court the boy was made to sit on the toilet for hours before bed, and that she once thought she saw the woman hitting the boy's head against the bathtub.
Yikes, that is awful.
This is an anomaly. MOST moms don't give their children up for adoption for fear they will prostitute them...
LOTS of moms in foreign countries don't have a say in it at all.
The point is - the goal isn't to remove kids from moms - the point is to make the moms able to properly care for kids.
So, instead of saying to a scared 18 year old mom "Give it up! You can't raise it!" we should ALL be working on ways for them to raise the baby and get educations, etc.
They have a program in my city for teen moms who would more likely than not give up their babies - but this program lets the mom stay there, teaches them what to do (not everyone had a good example or any help from family whatsoever) and the success rate is phenomenal. That is the goal - happy moms with happy well loved babies.
What is better - the natural mom able to take care of her baby or the baby ripped from her and given to another mom?
This isn't to say adoption can't be good -not at all. There ARE cases of mom not being able to care for a child due to mental illness, drug addiction, etc. There are tons of kids in foster care or group homes in the US who need homes desperately.
I saw a little boy, maybe 9 on tv once and he said "I just want someone to make sure I have my coat when I go to school." Broke my heart. People generally want babies - they aren't thinking of what is "good" for the child - just what they want.
The sad but true fact is, some women become pregnant, who truly don't ever want to be a mother, and others who never bond with their child. Some of these women have a "feeling" that they won't be good parents, and choose adoption for their child. Others try parenting for a short period of time, but because of their own parents faults and lack of nurturing, they fail, and place their children for adoption. Many times, some of these women still have feelings towards their children, and deserve to have contact, however, they know that parenting for one reason or another is not best.
I think that the ones who say to never give up a baby suffer from losses through the adoption triad at times, and don't ever want to see anyone else suffer that way, and wish they'd had someone to help themselves the way they're "helping" other women.
There are many people who believe that temporary problems with finances will prevent them from being decent parents, and these are often the women who need help to raise a child the most. They are the ones who love the baby, and wish they could keep it. Many of these cases shouldn't have the children placed, and on the other hand, many of these are women who for one reason or another, such as lack of education, addiction problems of drugs, alcohol, or even cigarettes, and the lack of job skills, know that their situation is unlikely to change, and these should be supported in their adoption plans, rather than hate mail sent to them. Sometimes, adoption is best.
Whether one is adopted or not, they may or may not have decent parents First parents might be horrible or fantastic parents. Adoptive parents go through more checks than pregnancy in order to become parents. Many times, AP's who are so overwhelmed and make abuses, or horrible mistakes are ones who are handed over a relative's child half heartedly, and foster to adopt parents who take on more than what they should, and become so overwrought.
Let's face it too, some people shouldn't be allowed to even have sex until they're steralized because of their bad habits and traits, and shouldn't ever be allowed to have children.
I think that if more children were placed into adoption at birth, then our foster care system would see a lot less kids in it.
I don't hear people on here say all the time "no matter what it is always best for the mother to keep their child". I don't think I've seen anyone say that in the year and a half I've been on this board. You are oversimplifying the discussion.
As for these stories... Do you really see women prostituting their 5-year-olds all the time? "All the time"?
People who abuse children like this are generally not going to be the ones who are considering adoption. People who want to abuse children like this won't be seeking counseling about adoption. If they are that evil, they will keep their children to further the abuse.
And for every story like this, we usually see a story about an adopted child being abused by his or her adoptive family.
Abuse is pathetic whether its a natural parent or an AP who does it. It happens in both sad cases. You will find AP's that abuse (like flying monkey listed) and you have natural parents who abuse like the case you mentioned.
BUT...........
Some one asked " Why do you feel the need to single out those regarding natural families only though? "
Its because AP cases are always singled out on y/a and then everybody uses those cases to further their cause and say WHY ALL ADOPTIONS ARE UNNECESARY AND BAD !!!!!! I have read a regular say " I would like to see the Stats of who are more abusive - AP's or Natural parents........and i am sure AP's will be surprised by the Stats" (Implying abuse mostly happens in adoptive cases)
No comments:
Post a Comment