By “abuse”, I am referring to physical, sexual, psychological and any other kind of thing which can reasonably be called “abuse”.
While abuse of non-adopted, non-fostered children occurs, I have gotten the partially anecdotal impression that abuse of adopted and fostered children is particularly prevalent.
Is this true?
If so, what factors contribute to it?
Are there types of adoption or fostering which are particularly associated with abuse?
Is abuse more common during fostering or adoption?
If it’s known to be true, do adoption/fostering agencies not check up?
Do you mean abuse prior to fostering and adoption, or after?
There certainly seems to be a higher percentage of children who have been abused at some point who are in the foster system than those who are in stable families, which shouldn’t be too shocking when you recall that removing children from unfit parents is one way children get into the foster care system.
There is still a tendency to value biological children over other children. This is, by no means, universal and there are many, many foster and adoptive parents who sincerely love and care for the children in their families regardless of origin, but the tendency still exists when you examine the population as a whole.
Then there are Bad People who want to use/exploit/abuse/whatever kids and try to get into the fostering/adoption sector in order to obtain children for nefarious purposes. Needless to say, any reputable agency will take pains to filter such people out but I have no doubt some slip through the cracks.
Children who have been sexually abused may act inappropriately for their ages, can be (though not always) over sexualized, have trouble forming appropriate relationships, and may attempt to use sex to manipulate adults. Even if this doesn’t lead to foster/adoptive parents abusing the kids it can lead to the kids being more likely to be abused by either relatives or strangers. Kids who have been sexually abused are more likely to engage in prostitution (hey, it’s a way to make money and manipulate others) which could certainly be considered abuse for underage children even if they “consent” to it or actively seek it out to make money.
Children who have been physically abused are more likely to act out with violence, and may abuse other children in the home because that’s their “normal” and how they learned to deal with problems, by using the same methods abusive adults used on them. Not all physically abused children do this, but statistically this sort of behavior is more likely in them.
All of which could probably be regarded as “factors why this happens” rather than statistics on how often such things actually occur.
I meant abuse during fostering and adoption rather than before. The reasons why there would be more abuse before is fairly straightforward since abuse can cause fostering/adoption.
A hefty 70% of the kids said their foster caregiver had one or more of the personal problems inquired about.
40% of the foster caregivers abused drugs or alcohol, 14% were mentally ill, 18% had committed domestic violence and 10% had spent time in jail or prison.
Beyond that, 34% of the children interviewed believed their foster caregivers demonstrated inadequate parenting skills.
Thirty-two percent of the children interviewed reported having been neglected, 13% reported child abuse and 2% reported sexual abuse by foster parents.
Seventeen percent said they’d been sexually abused by a relative, sibling or other youth while in foster care.
we are seeing decades’ worth of reports all come up within the last few years. So the impression arises of a far higher incidence than there really is.
that said, people who want to do vile things to children are naturally going to seek out roles that give lots of contact with children, including being foster parents - vetting on this basis was weak to non-existent for a long time.
I’d take issue with this statement in relation to those that chose to adopt, and those that have biological children - I’d contend that there is going to be a negligible difference between the feelings of a genuine adoptive parent and a biological parent.
I read it as “parents care more about bio-kids than the same parent cares about adoptive kids”, which I’d dispute…
If you take it to mean - “I care about my own kids more than some random other kids” - then of course it’s something that’s self evident and makes sense
In most situations, the foster parents are paid to look after the children, because it’s cheaper and allegedly less traumatic than running an orphanage institution. Money may attract less that capable types for the “easy” money with limited parenting skills, tolerance for children’s behaviour, etc. Due to shortages of care providers, the system may not be incentivized to dig deep or may have lower standards in approving homes. The system provides good money for the poorer class, but not enough to be an good incentive to the middle class - so you can get some who are in it for the money.
Also keep in mind that a lot of the children in the system have interesting problems which can result in equally interesting behaviour which pay-for-parenting types may not have the strength of personality or patience to deal with properly.
Some Asian cultures, if I recall my reading long ago, “adoptees” was a code word for cheap domestic help. I seem to recall was it Vietnam or China or India that would take a very close look at the adopting parents to ensure they were not actually “adopting” a Cinderella maid.
The preference for biological children can be a strong one. In cases where a biological child shows up not long after an adoption, sometimes you hear of the preference being fairly explicit.
Another issue - stepchildren. There’s a reason the evil stepmother is a common trope in old literature. She is stuck raising someone else’s child, who is competing with her children for her husband’s inheritance. If the “step” is due to divorce, add the insecurity that the children are a reminder for the husband of his ex, which the new wife may fear the husband will maybe one day regret leaving.
Playing the odds. A kid in the foster system might move through many households in the course of their life. The chances of being in close quarters with an abusive individual are going to be higher than if a child resides only with one family their entire life. I can’t see any solution to that.
My question: in terms of fostering/adoption, does that include relatives who take in kids after they have been removed from their parents? When CPS takes a kid away and places them with an aunt or someone (which, it is my understanding, is the first choice), does that count as a “foster” situation? If so, it seems really different to me than either a professional foster parent, who, on one hand, expects to see a rotating group of kids and has no family attachment, but, on the other hand, volunteered. When a kid is placed with an aunt or cousin, there is a family relationship, but that cuts both ways: in a situation where a child was removed, that family is likely complicated and has baggage. And both of those are different than a foster/adopt situation, where someone is looking to expand their family.
It just seems problematic to me to treat such different scenarios as the same. They don’t have much in common at all.
That’s not what I wrote. Way to completely miss the point.
Let’s try that again:
While there are unquestionably some fantastic foster and adoptive parents who draw no distinction between bio and adopted kids, when you consider the whole population of the planet there is still a tendency to value biokids over other kids.
No doubt that is one reason adoptive and foster parents are a minority. It also accounts for why some foster and adoptive parents (and step parents in blended families) who do make a distinction between their biokids and other kids. It’s one reason why infertile couples will spend incredible sums attempting to have their “own” kids, that is, their biokids.
The phrase “a genuine adoptive parent” is an example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. A “real” adoptive parent won’t make the distinction? Let me then introduce the concept of “legal adoptive parent”, which is what we’re talking about. Some subset of them (the majority, one hopes) are the “genuine” variety which love and care for all kids equally and a different subset are those who value a biokid over an adopted kid.
That’s another issue. The kids who move through multiple families are as likely as not doing so because they are the problem. Even the most tolerant foster parents may have issues when they catch kids causing rouble - encouraging their bio-kids (or other foster children) in behaviours like smoking, shoplifting, drugs, skipping school, breaking the rules - or worse yet, sexual “experimentation” or other unacceptable behaviour. Problem kids are therefore more likely to end up with someone who is exploitive or has inappropriate views of discipline and control, or simply neglectful.
The big question is “What happens when the foster care/adoptive system fails? What backups do we have?” The answer, of course, is an institution or prison. It’s a sad state of events.
Fostering and adopting are two very different situations with very different dynamics.
Adopting older children is a very different dynamic than adopting babies and even toddlers.
Having special needs kids in the house - fostered, adopted or biological is a different situation than having typical kids in the house.
In other words - there are a lot of variables at play. When we adopted (a non-special needs baby) the agency was very careful to make sure we weren’t adopting because we felt a calling to save a soul (those situations apparently don’t work out well) - but with infants and small children - agencies can afford to be picky in who passes and who doesn’t pass a homestudy - there are far more waiting parents than children.
With the foster care system there are more children than families. Social workers don’t always have a pick between two optimal situations for a child - usually its more of no choice and the situation is sub-optimal. People who foster are often called to it either to bring in more money into the household (not exactly a great reason to parent a kid who is in the system) or because they feel it is a charitable activity.
As someone who was adopted I can attest first hand that this sort of thing can happen. My older sister and myself came from different families and were adopted by a couple that were told they could not have children. As it turns out, our adoptive parents had a natural child against all odds. Both myself and my older sister suffered years of emotional and physical abuse that culminated with both of us running away at different times to live with adoptive family relatives. Meanwhile, our younger “natural” sister lived a completely different life under the same roof with us. She was not once physically or emotionally abused.
This type of thing CAN happen. In my case it happened to (what appeared on the surface) a “normal” american family. It happened subconsciously, and the abuse occurred under the banner of trying to do what’s best for children. It’s a story that I’m still struggling to find a way to tell… but has taught me so much about life and other people.