The Daily Reporter
Branch County, Mich. —
“Adoption Works Well,” according to a synthesis of the literature by Dr. Patrick Fagan, Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute of the Family Research Council.
“Adopted children benefit significantly from adoption,” he writes. Many move into “materially advantaged homes and to the care of supportive, educated adoptive parents who are very interested in all aspects of their child’s development.”
They are more likely than children born into intact homes to live with both parents because few adoptive parents divorce. “They scored higher than their middle class counterparts” in school achievement, social competence, optimism and volunteerism, “are less depressed than children of single parents and less involved in alcohol abuse, vandalism, group fighting, police trouble.” They also have higher self-esteem, self-directedness and positive views of others.
Children adopted before they are 12 months old are just as attached to their parents as those born to intact parents, but those who are adopted at older ages are less secure. “The older the child is at adoption, the greater are his special needs, and greater in turn is the need for parental constancy, flexibility and engagement,” Fagan writes. However, adoptive mothers spend more time with their children than do natural mothers, and most kids do well.
Even the birth mothers who relinquish a child fare well, with higher educational achievement and are less likely to live in poverty, or receive welfare than mothers who keep their out-of-wedlock children. Nor did they suffer “any extra social or psychological problems.”
Fagan cites a study showing that 90 percent of Americans view adoption positively.
Yet of the 1.75 million children born to unwed parents, only 22,000 a year were adopted in 2002, reports Chuck Johnson, President of the National Council for Adoption. And a soon-to be released survey of 2007, shows the numbers have fallen even further.
Alarmingly, out-of-wedlock births have soared eight-fold from five percent of all births to 41 percent in 2008. These children have the worst prospects in life. In an earlier study, Dr. Fagan reported that compared to children from intact homes, those from fatherless homes are:
24 times more likely to run away
15 times more apt to have behavior disorders and to end up in prison as a teenager
11 times more likely to commit rape
7 times more apt to become teenage mothers
6 times more likely to drop out of school and 3 times as apt to be expelled
33 times more likely to be seriously abused (requiring medical attention)
73 times more likely to be killed.
The peak adoption year was 1971 when 90,000 infants were adopted. About that time, major states, such as New York, began making abortion legal. In 1973 the Supreme Court issued its famous Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion nationally; abortions doubled overnight from 745,000 to 1.5 million. The number has dropped modestly to 1.2 million a year.
When combined with out-of-wedlock births, there are potentially 3 million children who could be adopted each year — to the clear benefit of the child and the birth mother.
Why are so few adopted? Only one percent of babies to unwed moms are relinquished.
To its credit, the Bush Administration created an adoption tax credit which was extended by the Obama Administration and Congress in Health Care Reform, that now gives a refundable tax credit worth $13,170 this year. It has had one positive benefit, of increasing the number of adoptions out of foster care, which have risen from 50,000 to 57,000.
Yet few infants are adopted. Why?
Regrettably, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, who see perhaps 200,000 women a year — rarely encourage unwed mothers to give their children for adoption. “The training for Crisis Pregnancy Resource Centers, has volunteers telling women that ‘God’s first plan is to mother the child,’ says Johnson of the Council for Adoption.
“Only a woman who is considered a poor risk because she would not be a good mother, if she is on drugs, for example, is advised to consider the adoption option.”
This is tragic for the children and their mothers.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers proudly proclaim they are “pro life.” But what kind of a life do they favor? One where the children are at high risk of failure, abuse and crime — or a life where the kids will fare better than those born to married parents?
It is a question that must be answered by Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteers.
They should read Pat Fagan’s report, “Adoption Works Well.”
Mike McManus, president of Marriage Savers, can be reached at Mike@MarriageSavers.org. His column appears each Saturday.
MY REPLY:
These studies are all slanted. They are all comparing adopted children to 'fatherless' children of single mothers. Today, the average mother relinquishing is 20 years of age and many are married and have other children. In the past, when 'unwed' status was reason enough to pressure a mother to surrender her parental rights, the vast majority went on to marry - some marrying the father of the relinquished child and having full siblings.
How ironic that today single parenthood is accepted to the point that single women adopt!
The fact is that it is not marital status that matters at all - it is all about money - who has it and who does not that determines who is 'deserving' of who's children in our capitalistic society. We take from the poor and give to the wealthier in what I have labeled Reverse Robinhoodism.
Yes, adoption moves children upwardly and often provides them more material well-being. But not without a cost. It is a trade-off of their true identity, heritage, all family ties, and knowledge of their roots and lineage, as well as medical history. It
gives them 'things' and also a deep seeded feeling of rejection.
Adoption should thus always be a last resort. The end does not justify the means when coercion is used to exploit poverty here and abroad to obtain children as commodities to meet a demand.
The fact that less women are resorting to needing to place their children with strangers is the sign of healthier society and should be applauded, it is not a cause for concern except for those who profit from the redistribution of children. If you check you will see it is the industry profiteers who sponsor the studies that show adoption is such a positive thing. What documentation is there, for instance, that adoptive parents have a lower rate of divorce than the general populace when anecdotal material shows the opposite to be true.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that not all adoptions are equal and should not be promoted with a broad brush. There are half a million children in foster care and approx. 120,000 cannot be reunited with family and COULD be adopted. These children are virtually ignored - as are older children in orphanages worldwide - while mothers are pressured to relinquish newborns and younger, healthier babies overseas are stolen and kidnapped to meet a demand.
Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . . The Special Rapporteur, United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.
'Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery.' UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption.
How ironic that today single parenthood is accepted to the point that single women adopt!
The fact is that it is not marital status that matters at all - it is all about money - who has it and who does not that determines who is 'deserving' of who's children in our capitalistic society. We take from the poor and give to the wealthier in what I have labeled Reverse Robinhoodism.
Yes, adoption moves children upwardly and often provides them more material well-being. But not without a cost. It is a trade-off of their true identity, heritage, all family ties, and knowledge of their roots and lineage, as well as medical history. It
gives them 'things' and also a deep seeded feeling of rejection.
Adoption should thus always be a last resort. The end does not justify the means when coercion is used to exploit poverty here and abroad to obtain children as commodities to meet a demand.
The fact that less women are resorting to needing to place their children with strangers is the sign of healthier society and should be applauded, it is not a cause for concern except for those who profit from the redistribution of children. If you check you will see it is the industry profiteers who sponsor the studies that show adoption is such a positive thing. What documentation is there, for instance, that adoptive parents have a lower rate of divorce than the general populace when anecdotal material shows the opposite to be true.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that not all adoptions are equal and should not be promoted with a broad brush. There are half a million children in foster care and approx. 120,000 cannot be reunited with family and COULD be adopted. These children are virtually ignored - as are older children in orphanages worldwide - while mothers are pressured to relinquish newborns and younger, healthier babies overseas are stolen and kidnapped to meet a demand.
Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . . The Special Rapporteur, United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.
'Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery.' UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption.
The fact that birth mothers 'fare well' in terms of education etc does not mean it is not without its toll. Studies indicate that mothers who relinquish children to adoptions suffer lifelong grief, anger, shame and guilt and some studies have found that rather than dissipate the pain for some mothers increases with time.
Please see: http://www.advocatepublications.com/index,php/presentations/grief.html
OR: http://www.tinyurl.com/adoption-grief
Why would you encourage adoption separations anymore than you'd encourage family disruption via divorce? After all, there are many never marrieds that 'deserve' to have a chance at your mate, why not recycle him or her and give someone needy a shot at it? Someone else might be more caring than you, or might be able to offer your spouse more 'advantages' than you can! For that matter, there's always someone who can offer YOUR kid a 'better' life materially than you can, so why not give up one of YOUR kids?
Adoption does not prevent or even reduce child abuse or neglect. Children in need of rescue from harm are generally removed by the state, not through the encouragement of more voluntary relinquishments at pregnancy centers who deal with mothers-to-be who have yet to prove their ability to parent.
Adoption does not prevent or even reduce child abuse or neglect. Children in need of rescue from harm are generally removed by the state, not through the encouragement of more voluntary relinquishments at pregnancy centers who deal with mothers-to-be who have yet to prove their ability to parent.
PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS HERE.
2 comments:
Sometimes I think I should make it my life's work to dispel the myth that adoptees always get a stable family and a more materially advantaged one. And that this overrides the child's loss of his/her ENTIRE family on both sides. These studies sound like nothing but propoganda from the adoption industry.
Please do!
Post a Comment