'anabaptist' Attitude Toward Adoption

[Ken]

1. Adoption tends to be the defining characteristic when it should not be. What I mean by that is if a birth child becomes difficult, say they have a drug problem. If it is a birth child the PROBLEM becomes the focal point. But if they are adopted the focus is first on the adoption characteristic rather than the problem. The same with a physical issue. One of our adopted children had a physical issue (I am being vague on purpose) that fortunately was able to be addressed. The point is children that are NOT adopted have all sorts of possible issues too…. But their birth characteristic is never brought into it.

But the facts are clear: children who are adopted have far more problems than children who are not. (Yes, I know that some adopted children don't have problems, and some natural-born children do have problems.)

I don't think (at least in our circles) that the adoption characteristic is the main focus. Oftentimes, people try very hard to try to pretend the adoption characteristic isn't even there. However, after a family churns out every single adopted child having a major social (and often legal) problem, and perhaps they have a natural born child or two that doesn't, the difference becomes painfully obvious.

Adopted children do tend to have higher rates of social and emotional problems than biological children. But that is because a much higher percentage of children placed up for adoption have suffered various forms of physical and mental trauma prior to adoption. Such as drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, poor nutrition and prenatal care, attachment problems, and various forms of neglect/abuse for older infants and children. Children in loving homes are not generally given up for adoption.

So while it is true that the adoption process does select for infants/children that have experienced trauma of some sort, there is no evidence that the act of adoption itself generates any of these problems. It just means that children placed up for adoption are more likely to have experienced physical or mental trauma than biological children.

The problem is that many adoptive parents (including many who are conservative Christians) either don't understand this, or think they can "fix" children simply through love, "proper Christian child rearing" and such. And then discover too late that they were wrong.

[Neto]

Adopted children do tend to have higher rates of social and emotional problems than biological children. But that is because a much higher percentage of children placed up for adoption have suffered various forms of physical and mental trauma prior to adoption. Such as drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, poor nutrition and prenatal care, attachment problems, and various forms of neglect/abuse for older infants and children. Children in loving homes are not generally given up for adoption.

So while it is true that the adoption process does select for infants/children that have experienced trauma of some sort, there is no evidence that the act of adoption itself generates any of these problems. It just means that children placed up for adoption are more likely to have experienced physical or mental trauma than biological children.

The problem is that many adoptive parents (including many who are conservative Christians) either don't understand this, or think they can "fix" children simply through love, "proper Christian child rearing" and such. And then discover too late that they were wrong.

I did hit the LIKE button on this, with this caveat:

I do not know if "Adopted children do tend to have higher rates of social and emotional problems than biological children." That is, I do not know if this statement is really true, or if it just seems so, or if REPORTED CASE data supports this. I suspect that at least the latter is true. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the statement itself is true.

But the above is not my main point here, so I want to quickly pass over it, and go on to what to me is of greater significance.

I agree that "the act of adoption does not itself generate the problems which adoptees experience (perhaps often)." However, I think that the thing that made the child AVAILABLE for adoption DOES contribute to feelings of rejection, and sometimes this feeling aggravates the emotional challenges that every child faces. I will further posit that while the experiences that an older child has undergone in an abusive or "rejective" (I know, not a word) environment may contribute to social and emotional challenges, even a child who only finds out in later childhood that they were adopted MAY have a heightened sense of rejection. They may then interpret many experiences, even in the most loving homes, as evidence of continued rejection. That doubt as to "Why was I rejected by my very own mother?" plays on their self-concept, feeding rebellion, and rejection of the loving family into which they were adopted - grafted. (I like the word 'grafting', because it is a permanent process.)

So I also agree that adoptive parents who think that their love alone will heal all wounds are not perceiving the whole picture, or process.

So if I am correct in my thinking here, what differences does this suggest for how an adoptive couple should act?
1.) Don't wait until the sometimes turbulent teen years to tell a child that they were adopted. (I suspect that this would be the wrong time to "cast further doubt" on the child's self-concept.)
2.) Talk freely with the child about their adoption, and listen seriously to their response to this information.
3.) Don't take it personally when the child expresses feeling of rejection. (And do not "blame" it all on the fact of adoption. Be open to correction yourself. Realize that perhaps most every child, adopted or not, will at some point feel like they "hate" their parents. Some will say so.)

Full Disclosure: We did not adopt children, although we were always open to it. So perhaps nothing here should really carry any weight with anyone else. These are just my thoughts.

[Ken]

I did hit the LIKE button on this, with this caveat:

I do not know if "Adopted children do tend to have higher rates of social and emotional problems than biological children." That is, I do not know if this statement is really true, or if it just seems so, or if REPORTED CASE data supports this. I suspect that at least the latter is true. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the statement itself is true.

Josh is right in that adopted children do exhibit higher rates of physical and social problems. For example, here is one article on the subject but you can find many many more: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... th/418230/ There are a lot of different studies on this topic. How rigorous they are I really don't know.

My point was simply that the ACT of adoption itself is not the issue. The issue is that the CIRCUMSTANCES that lead to children being given up for adoption carry with them higher risks of physical and psychological trauma. Children that are loved and well cared for are not generally give up for adoption.

For the sake of disclosure. My oldest daughter is adopted. But it was through private family circumstances and not they typical orphan adoption. From an early age we made sure we were open with her and she knew she was adopted. Because we felt no good would come of keeping it a secret from her. There were a few times when she was a rebellious teen where she pulled the "you aren't my real Dad" card" but she is a happy, well adjusted, and successful young adult and we haven't had any issues with her that we didn't have with our other two biological daughters. I helped her do the 23 & Me genetic test to see her genetic roots but after we did that she wasn't really curious anymore.

[Josh]

Adopted children do tend to have higher rates of social and emotional problems than biological children. But that is because a much higher percentage of children placed up for adoption have suffered various forms of physical and mental trauma prior to adoption. Such as drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, poor nutrition and prenatal care, attachment problems, and various forms of neglect/abuse for older infants and children. Children in loving homes are not generally given up for adoption.

The reasons "why" don't really matter, though. It doesn't make the problems go away.

So while it is true that the adoption process does select for infants/children that have experienced trauma of some sort, there is no evidence that the act of adoption itself generates any of these problems. It just means that children placed up for adoption are more likely to have experienced physical or mental trauma than biological children.

I would argue that being rejected or taken away from birth parents is, in itself, traumatic (as is being rejected by one parent and thus raised by, e.g., a single mother). Plenty of research supports my argument.

The problem is that many adoptive parents (including many who are conservative Christians) either don't understand this, or think they can "fix" children simply through love, "proper Christian child rearing" and such. And then discover too late that they were wrong.

Yes, there is an overall desire to be in denial that different groups of people end up having innate differences (on a whole). So we can generalise and say, for example, that golden retrievers will like to retrieve. My border collie likes to herd. English bulldogs like to sit around all day. Of course, none of this holds for every individual; some golden retrievers don't want to retrieve, but most do.

This kind of "blank slate" mindset is quite harmful since it often results in adoptive parents being in denial that their children are having problems instead of recognising that they should be prepared to make sure the right resources are available to deal with small problems before they become big problems. (For an example of what being in denial looks like... suppose a family has adopted two children who keep having repeated problems such as starting fights with other children and general anti-social behaviour. They decide to go adopt a third child, and then react to any admonishment to deal with their children's behavioural problems as just being someone is anti-adoption, or is prejudiced against some other characteristic their adopted children might have).

[JayP]

Josh. I will give up the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean what you said in the best way.

The issue of DO adopted children have more issues than biological ones is probably the wrong way to say it. Because again you are focusing on the word adoption which is not the issue.

What I mean is I do not believe adoption itself means there will be more issues.
I believe characteristics such as has the child been in foster care, how old is the child, etc. is the more definitive issue.
It is regrettable but,children in foster care have probably been abused in some way. If not just being raised without a family will lead to more likely issues.

On the other hand I would dispute that a child adopted from birth, for example, is any more likely than a birth child to have significantly more issues. Some different ones but not more.

Adoption is one of those topics where folks without firsthand knowledge seem to have an awful lot of opinions.

FWWIW, I feel the same way here about non Catholics having opinions on Catholics or folks that have never been part of a real anabaptist church having all sorts of opinions as well.

[Josh]

On the other hand I would dispute that a child adopted from birth, for example, is any more likely than a birth child to have significantly more issues. Some different ones but not more.

The simple facts are that adopted children (including at birth) have more social problems than natural born children raised by their own parents.

It does nobody any good to be in denial of this fact.

Adoption is one of those topics where folks without firsthand knowledge seem to have an awful lot of opinions.

My firsthand experience ranges from having parents who fostered and adopted to being a foster and adoptive parent myself. Part of being a good parent is knowing what to expect.

[Ken]

On the other hand I would dispute that a child adopted from birth, for example, is any more likely than a birth child to have significantly more issues. Some different ones but not more.

The simple facts are that adopted children (including at birth) have more social problems than natural born children raised by their own parents.

It does nobody any good to be in denial of this fact.

Josh is actually correct about this. The statistics are widely available. The reason is not because they are adopted. But rather because the life circumstances that lead biological mothers to give children up for adoption at birth are directly correlated with increase in fetal trauma. Mothers who give children up for adoption at birth are:

• more likely to be substance abusers who have exposed the fetus to any of a wide variety of drugs and/or alcohol and cigarettes during pregnancy
• more likely to have a poor diet which means the fetus is more likely to experience some form of malnutrition, lack of nutrients, lack of vitamins, etc.
• more likely to have chronic and untreated heath conditions which can translate to poor fetal health
• more likely to live unhealthy lives and have poor health habits such as lack of sleep
• less likely to receive regular prenatal care which can catch problems early in pregnancy

And frankly, although studies don't generally say this because it isn't really politically correct. But biological mothers who give children up for adoption at birth are more likely themselves to come from worse genetic stock. As in they have inherited negative personality traits that led to the life circumstances that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And those traits are more likely to be passed on to their offspring. Some dysfunction is, indeed, genetic.

For all of those reasons and more, it is simply the case that infants adopted at birth have a higher rate of future health and behavior problems than children born into nuclear families.

[Josh]

And frankly, although studies don't generally say this because it isn't really politically correct. But biological mothers who give children up for adoption at birth are more likely themselves to come from worse genetic stock. As in they have inherited negative personality traits that led to the life circumstances that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And those traits are more likely to be passed on to their offspring. Some dysfunction is, indeed, genetic.

Another way to look at it is, their birth parents and birth family may have had a culture and ingrained knowledge how to deal with, say, a more aggressive personality. An adoptive family might be more docile and passive. (Or vice versa.) So adopted parents simply need to know they are missing some of the “tools” that birth parents have and take for granted.

In my extended family, the adopted kids have a “gentler” personality than the natural born kids. The approach to discipline has to be different, and it is obvious to see the differences. Now imagine if it were opposite: what if their adopted kids were more stubborn and the natural born kids more obedient and compliant?

One good approach is adopting siblings or cousins as much as possible, since they are more likely to be similar. One of my wife’s relatives adopted a bunch of Marshallese. They have different personalities than the rest of that family - quite extroverted. (My own kids are a bit different than typical Swiss or Russian Mennonite kids. Being quite a bit more extroverted too.) But since they have a household with 4 of them, their family now has a unique personality and the (adoptive) parents have learned how to handle them.

Here’s what is a bad approach: a “blank slate” theory that a lot of Mennonites seem to have - that all babies start out identical and it’s purely a function of environment how “good” they turn out. And then they are scratching their heads 20 or 30 years later when there are obvious differences. I do see a lot of adopted adults struggling to figure out how to fit into the plain Anabaptist “mold”, much like seekers do.

[JayP]

Discussion of serious issues by I’ll informed folks is not helpful or productive.
Note, I do not dispute both adoptive parents and children can have issues.
Although I might describe life as having consistent issues.

I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. They are like noses, everyone has one.

On the other side, folks quoting a study here or there hardly my definition of experts.
Also, consider many here have some identification with Anabaptists. Perhaps a topic should be should Anabaptists avoid adoption.
I would certainly say the inherent bias of the Mennonites and Mennonite churches I know certainly add complications for adoption that worldly folks do not have.

There can be real issues with adoption. Make your choices. That is fine. We did and while we are extremely thankful we did, I also believe it was pleasing to God.
I respectfully suggest the thread move on to discuss all the short comings so many Plain Folk need to address to become a better environment for adoption. Sad commentary that I would often rather see a non Menno family adopt a particular child than a Menno one.

My particular most hated bias in such communities is back when Bill Gothard was so influential. The garbage he spread related to adoption , and his racial prejudice, was,awful.

[Ken]

I came across this chart today in another context (not adoption) but it is very relevant here. This chart displays the how much of each of these traits is genetic rather than environment/learned. Aggressive behavior, for example, is 65% genetic and hyperactivity is 95% genetic. Reading for pleasure is 95% genetic which very much surprises me.

Willful denial of these sorts of facts probably explains in part why some conservative Menno families have such a hard time with adoptions. They are trying to pound square pegs into round holes.