Per this story is this a valid reason to return an adopted child?
A women has five biological daughters. She adopts from South America. The child turns out to have considerable developmental difficulties. It’s making her life hell, and messing up her marriage and etc. … she decides she’s not “bonding” and gives it back to the adoption agency.
Did she do the right thing or not?
Not a valid reason, IMHO. I also had a son I had a lot of trouble bonding with. I just couldn’t feel for him the way I did for my other children. It took over a year for the bond to form.
So you fake it if you don’t feel it. You act loving. You tickle their toes, sing them songs, give lots of hugs and kisses. For most people, eventually a true bond will blossom. But even if it doesn’t, by behaving lovingly toward the child you are at least giving them the nurturing they need.
Whether the child is born to you or adopted by you, you owe them a future. It’s not a rental item that can be returned if you are dissatisfied. As long as you are capable of treating the child well and not being cruel or abusive, you have a life-long commitment to him or her.
Well, she didn’t return him to the agency and wash her hands of him. She gave him directly to another couple who wanted him very much and were well-suited to raising him, and who have now legally adopted him.
After reading the full article and what she took into consideration – and the efforts she went to in trying to form meaningful relationship – yes, she did the right thing for all concerned. I’d much rather that children go to familes where they will be accepted and loved as they are, then stay in families where they are a burden.
The ugly truth of the world is that people surrender children all the time, for reasons that range from utter bullshit to lacking any other choice. If a parent reaches the point where they’re willing to surrender the child, it’s probably best if the child doesn’t stay with them.
In this case, she did the right thing. I read the whole article, and it sounds like she did all the right things, had expert help, tried hard to make it work. I’m glad she had the option to give up the child – he’s in a home now where the parents have experience with developmental problems and the child is doing better than he was in her home.
It’s a tough question though. Biological parents can give up a child. Should we hold adoptive parents to a higher standard? They start with the best of intentions. Sometimes it doesn’t work out, and assuming they gave it all they had (and it sounds like this family did), they shouldn’t be judged.
OTOH, it’s better to find out sooner rather than later. I can’t imagine having a child for more than a year or two and trying (or wanting) to give him back.
It’s a hard question, for sure.
If he’s with a family who want him and know how to deal with his problems, I say it’s all good. He’s far, far better off than dead at the side of a road.
I’m of two totally different minds about this, so this might sound a bit confused.
On one hand, I am appalled that she would actually give him back. Parenting is a lifetime commitment, and the most difficult job in the world. Too many people go into it with no conception of how difficult it will be. If, all of the sudden, we started looking kindly on people who give up kids when it becomes too hard, where will we be as a society? There has to be an expectation that one will do everything, no matter how hard, to raise that child well.
On the other hand, if she had stuck with it at all costs, to avoid criticism, that may have been selfish in it’s own way. Now, it seems, D. has the chance to be a full fledged member of a family. He’ll certainly be emotionally better off than if he had stayed with the author of the article. There was the chance that no matter how hard she faked it, that feeling would never truly develop, and D would always perceive the ever so slight difference between how he and his sisters were treated. There’s also the possibility that he would have been treated badly by his sisters, leaving him an outsider in his own family. He may have been screwed up forever. Now, he has a chance of being emotionally healthy.
There really aren’t going to be any easy answers in this one. I can see both sides of this argument being equally ‘right’.
My ex sister-in-law gave up her developmentally disabled child to foster care because she couldn’t deal. She maintained contact with her, and the child stayed in a single loving home throughout her childhood, and still lives with them now as an adult. I think the child got much better care from her foster parents, who were willing and able to raise her and give her what she needed.
I don’t see why it would be any worse for an adoptive parent to do such a thing.
Yeah I think the details of this particular story are important, in this case she stuck with him until he was literally in the arms of his new mother. If a kid will have a better life with another family, all things considered, then that’s the right thing to do, and it seems pretty clear that in this case the kid will be be better off with his new family. The fact that may look convenient for Adoptive Mom #1 doesn’t change what’s best for the kid.
And FWIW I don’t actually think this was the path of least resistance for Mom #1. She could have become and indifferent mother who dumped her kid on older siblings. Lots of people take this route so obviously it’s not that hard to do.
As soon as I read the thread title I know who you were talking about. This is a reprint of the piece for the Motherlode section of the New York Times a few months back. Readers found her personal blog and previous articles about the adoption and there are plenty of holes in her story that are revealed in the comments section. Including the fact that she got pregnant AFTER she started adoption proceedings.
IMO she is a pretty awful and self-centred human being. This is all just self-serving media for her upcoming book, which sounds like the usual brand of liberal navelgazing blog-to-book fare. And I’m pretty tired of this attitude that children are better off being bandied about through shitty situations and multiple abandonments in the West than they are remaining in their countries of origin. I don’t think it does much for international adoption. This woman was not fit to be an adoptive parent to begin with and she played her part in adding to the trauma of a little kid who already had enough on his plate. I’m flabbergasted at how she made it through the screening procedures. I don’t particularly care that she’s disgusting, I’m just curious as to how she managed to snooker her adoptive agency.
I’d never heard of her before and have no idea what’s happened in public discussions of her. I reacted to the article and took it at face value.
Why do all the parents who write about parenting in NYTimes come off as very self-centered or annoying? Salon, too.
Is it any different because it’s an adopted child? I mean I think it is better for the child to be with parents and a family who can bond with it but what if she had a biological child and just couldn’t bond. Would this be any different?
It seems like if she did everything she could and still felt that she could never be a real mother to the boy, then he was better off going with another family.
My parents gave back a child that they had had for a year. My mom said that if the adoption had been final, they would have kept him no matter what, but it wasn’t. Does that make a difference?
For those who recall the actress Bette Davis, she adopted a child and this child was known to have “mental defects” as they called them at the time.
The long of it short, decades later it came out the agency knew darn well how difficult this kid was and how much trouble she’d be so the targeted Davis when she applied to adopt simply because they knew that Davis, being a celebrity couldn’t return the child.
The child did have a difficult life and spent much of it in institutions.
This said, it does make you wonder whether agencies know such things
I know PLENTY of biological parents who don’t bond/can’t handle/don’t like their biological kids and it would never occur to them to “get help”. (It’s just their lot in life and what would the neighbors say if you gave up your own kid??? ) So parents and kids are stuck with each other. The difference with this adoptive mother is she was bright and motivated enough to TRY everything before handing the child over to better adoptive parents. The child IMO will be better off, and I give the woman credit for admitting she couldn’t do the job.
To answer the OP: obviously not a good enough reason. But this lady had more. In most cases, there would be no other family who wants the child, so staying with the first adopter would be the best option for the child’s welfare. But not so in this case. I don’t see how it’s any different from the biological mother offering the kids to parents who could do a better job. Heck, as **slainqmind **points out, it’s actually a bit better.