What types of people should not be allowed to adopt children?

Child abuse in any context is evil, so how do you make sure evil people are not able to adopt?

It's heartbreaking, but a depersonalized orphanage in a third world country is superior to an American family in some cases.

Maybe there should be a questionnaire that determines if the adults believe they literally "own" their children?

Here's a story of an adoption gone horribly wrong.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Apples and oranges, my friend. This will be a interesting thread to read responses on but "doubtful" on a solid outcome. It's almost "like" debating abortion.

Anyone can lie on a questionaire. Some of the most evil individuals "look and sound" like saints when the opposite is more to there "tune".

Someone can have a clean slate and still "beateth" the childs "asseth" for lack of better ways of stating just "abuse".

I could go on, but I will wait for others responses.

Good luck with this and best regards,

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

Define "types"....

Peace

InverseLookingGlass
so how do you make sure evil people are not able to adopt?

Potential adoptive parents are put through a rigorous investigative process. Background checks, medical checks, psychological checks, financial checks, character references (and even checks on those character references), in home visits from the state before adoption and after adoption, regular reports from the state who visits the home and regular updates from the adoptive parents for years afterwards.

but a depersonalized orphanage in a third world country is superior to an American family in some cases.

VERY few cases.

Maybe there should be a questionnaire that determines if the adults believe they literally "own" their children?

Adoptive parents ARE the parents of the child. The state doesn't own the child.
The parents are fully incharge of the child.


If you had seen the conditions of the orphanage that we adopted our daughter from in Bolivia, I think you wouldn't be so quick to leave children in 'depersonalized orphanages' just because a few adoptions 'go bad' here in the USA. The mortality rate in that orphanage was 20%. None of them who survived were learning to read or write. If we hadn't adopted our daughter, she would have died. SHe was very sick. If she had survived, it would have been a miracle. But upon turning 16 or so she would have been pushed out into the street to try to survive on her own.

It breaks my heart when I think of all the children who were in the orphanage and we could only adopt one. It cost too much to adopt more. We didn't have it. I wish we did. We would have brought home more children.

It's funny that you can't work in sensitive areas or in a job that you need to be bonded if you have a criminal record, but the same person can go out and have a dozen human beings that they can corrupt and/or abuse.

There should be a license required to have children. The responsible ones will have no problem with that.

Edit: FF, you said it yourself. If you could've adopted more, you would have. That is the way parenting should be. Too many people view children as a paycheque. I throw everything I have and earn into my children. Do I make mistakes? Yup, who doesn't. The difference is, I admit it, apologize and talk about it with my children so we can all benefit from one persons (parents) mistake.

the same people who pass the same credit checks needed to buy a home.
people who pass random drug tests.
people with college education.
people with only 0-1 children already.


basically, im all for regulations keeping people from using adopted children as a monthly paycheck. there are far to many of those.

People who post on government conspiracy websites.
Edit: I'm being cheeky.

An appropriate question would be: What type of people should be allowed to adopt.
The answer is loving people with a robust income, decent credit, and suitable living conditions.

FlyersFan

InverseLookingGlass
so how do you make sure evil people are not able to adopt?

Potential adoptive parents are put through a rigorous investigative process. Background checks, medical checks, psychological checks, financial checks, character references (and even checks on those character references), in home visits from the state before adoption and after adoption, regular reports from the state who visits the home and regular updates from the adoptive parents for years afterwards.

As an adoptive parent I can confirm this. It took over a year before adoption was finalized in our case. That said it was one of the few times I did not resent the nanny state for it's intrusiveness. They have a duty to insure the safety of adoptive children and in our case did a good job in that regard.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


There will always be abusive people in the world. In the case of adoption, questionnaires won't do # to stop abusive people from existing.

Maybe the best way to prevent abuse of adoptive children is to require adoptive parents to be part of a community that their child will then be in as well. That will mean that for adoptive kids, you will have the children at least have some interaction with other people besides whoever adopted them. Also maybe require kids adopted from foreign countries to have counseling as a part of the adoption process. The countries are different after all.

In the end, there is no perfect system. The government is not good at protecting or preventing abuse as it is abusive itself. The best answer is community and for us all to not turn a blind eye when we suspect child abuse.

reply to post by Bisman

basically, im all for regulations keeping people from using adopted children as a monthly paycheck. there are far to many of those.

I'd like to see proof of this statement. Especially in regards to the extensive requirements to even be "considered" being an adoptive family.

Sounds like your mixing 2 different subjects together, I.E: Welfare and Adoption.

Lastly, even people w/ "Good Credit" and meeting the requirements that you listed can turn out to be abusive and again for lack of better wording "Douche Bags". Where as a family that has financially less (Not using the system) provide a better housing and family environment.

Best regards~

Folks that treat a kid right, help them follow their dreams and pass relevant background checks..

The heartbreaking thing is that there are plenty of people who would love a child with all their hearts who could not pass the red tape because they are lacking in some area or another.

We probably wouldn't pass the financial test, for example, although I believe we could make ends meet.

And the last thing I want is for the state to come crawling up into my home invading my privacy.

For all of that, my husband was adopted and two or my five nephews are adopted, and my husband and I have given it serious thought for a second child.

For me, I think the hierarchy for adoption consideration should be stable, two parent traditional families first, then stable two parent families, then single parent families. The main reason why I put traditional families on top is because I think children benefit best from having role models of each gender during their formative years and not because I'm against homosexual families.

reply to post by operation mindcrime

Define "types"....

fair question.The OP is exploring the idea that the predilection to abuse a child can be "typed" using a handful of parameters that are both definable and quantifiable.

There's been a lot of discussion about suitability to adopt, but interestingly, different people focus on different attributes. Financial means testing is unavoidable for obvious reasons, but what comes after that?

reply to post by sulaw




i think all the same hardships to be allowed adoption, should be used to license people to make their own children.
being an adopted kid these days is a hell of a lot safer than being a natural born family member.
the gov takes away every other right we have, but they leave the one that needs to be taken the most. the right to excessively reproduce and raise #ty kids in a bad way.

Bisman
being an adopted kid these days is a hell of a lot safer than being a natural born family member.

You've got an excellent point. All the adopted kids I know are in excellent homes and very well loved. I can't say that about all the children in the natural born families that I know ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


It also breaks my heart to see how many of those adoptive kids go on to sort of crap all over their adoptive lives by hand-wringing about how they "never really belonged" and spend time flagrantly searching for their blood relatives as though that will answer the empty holes in their lives.

I wonder how many of them really had it all that bad in their adoptive situations as compared to the rest of us, and how many of them are just assuming that their standard angst is due to being adopted?

My husband tells me he's never really wondered beyond wanting to know the genetic side for possible medical information.

Bisman
reply to post by sulaw

 

i think all the same hardships to be allowed adoption, should be used to license people to make their own children.
being an adopted kid these days is a hell of a lot safer than being a natural born family member.
the gov takes away every other right we have, but they leave the one that needs to be taken the most. the right to excessively reproduce and raise #ty kids in a bad way.

I can agree to a extent and I don't think that you wrong, I just feel if we keep going the way your point(s) are moving we'll be to far off topic.

Agree, that most adopted children are in a better enviroment "once" they are adopted. What about the children who are "never" adopted and "don't" receive that family and love that you talk about? Do they still turn out the same?

There are more children to be adopted than "suitable" families, it's always been the case. You can't just be any Joe Shmoe and walk in and buy a child... Unless your Bradgelina that is....

ketsuko
My husband tells me he's never really wondered beyond wanting to know the genetic side for possible medical information.

This weekend, my daughter decided to do that 23andMe genetic testing. We know nothing about her birth parents medical back ground. This genetic testing will help fill in some blanks for her. She was really excited about it. (she's 17) Google up 23andMe. You might find it interesting and helpful.

We should get the results of her testing in a few weeks.

Oh look, another thread attempting to justify taking rights and freedoms away from anyone who isn't perfect! Yay, ignorance!!!

I might not make enough money to pass your test, yet my children have never gone hungry a day in their lives. I must be EEEEEVVVIIILLLL!!!!

I had a troubled life when I was young resulting in a criminal record, yet I have lived an exemplary life for decades. I must be EEEEEEVVVIIIILLLL!!!!

I belong to a religion you don't like. I must be EEEEEEVVVVVIIIILLLLL!

People change. How do you tell the bad people who realize the error of their ways and become good? More important, how do you identify the good people who have become bad? How do you identify a bad person who just hasn't been caught?

I know, lets just make it so that only PERFECT people get to adopt! (And, of course, perfect means JUST LIKE ME!)

reply to post by sulaw


Actually, I think they may be referring to the system here in the US, of fostering, sometimes with the option of adopting. In those cases, you can get paid by the state, or, upon adoption, elect not to. I work with a fellow that fostered, then adopted sisters. It was for love, not money, and does not get paid for them.