But it wouldn't require unlimited resources, a family pays for their children whether they be adopted or not. The system that presently exists does monitor future parents of adopted children and foster children though the same measures are not in place for adoptions that have been organized outside of the US. So no it does not require a utopia.
Perhaps not "unlimited" resources - more like "unreasonable" and/or "unlikely". There is
some finite limit at which people will stop spending money to make sure that adopted children are "safe" and "happy". I believe (without checking sources) that many agencies, NGOs, etc. are
already underfunded and struggling to stay alive.
(in business)
Do you disagree with this? Are you of the opinion that there are more resources available than there is demand for these types of services? I can't see you maintaining this opinion - you're too smart.
If there are not enough resources available under current conditions, wouldn't the implication be that
extra money would have to be "found" (somehow) if we are to
increase the amount of care, monitoring, enforcement, etc. over and above today's state? If so, where would you propose that we obtain these funds? The normal sources - taxes, charitable contributions, endowments, etc. seem to be tapped out. Especially with today's recession / depression, I would expect difficulties in allocating
more money to this cause - but, maybe I am mistaken. It certainly would be "nice" if there was more money, labor, etc. available than required...
Of course you are probably correct that the system isn't perfect when it comes to following the law to the last letter there is still a system in place, flawed as it may be there are sill guidelines.
I agree - guidelines by the boatload exist - the trick is translating them into reality.
I know of no law that stipulates that adopted parents should be monitored for the life of the child but there should be such 'intrusion' for the length of a year.
First of all, I never said "life of the child", I said "until age of majority". Or maybe that's what you mean by "life of the
child, as opposed to life of the
person - I guess you could interpret your statement to read "end of childhood" if you angle the paper just right under proper lighting...
Anyway, I know of no such law either. This was originally intended as a question - forgetting for a moment constrictions imposed by resource availability, do
you think it would be advisable for some sort of agency to investigate an adopted child's lifestyle from newborn to eighteen? (US age of majority - for the most part)
Remember that even foster parents who are payed to take care of unwanted children are regularly monitored for as long as they have the child.
Ummm, I think I could make a case that these situations
should be more closely monitored than outright adoption. Why? Because, as you pointed out, "foster parents
who are
paid to take care of unwanted children"
I am not advocating long life government involvement, simply a hands on approach to ensure as much as possible that the child and the family are finding its ground in settling in.
Well, "as much as possible" would, in fact, imply daily monitoring until age of majority, would it not? But, again, we are constrained by "available resources", right? If this does not describe your position, then what, exactly,
is your position? It seems to me that it boils down to an arbitrary number of days - 365 seems appropriate to you, right? Why not 180? Or 730?
Discrimination against gays is a societal and cultural issue in general so of course it will show up in all institutions but that is changing even if it seems at a slow pace.
Agreed.
Well this I know from talking with professionals who arrange adoptions, not in the States but in Cambodia and they are mostly Italian NGO workers. From what I understand there is not always a natural bonding between an adopted child and their new parents especially if the child isn't adopted as an infant or if it is physically different from the parents which is why the Italian government goes to great expense to monitor overseas adoptions. Having said that I have been told that the type of 'testing' of the new parents is not similar to that of a natural born child who may test their parents. From what I have come to understand there is this state where the child is testing to see if it will be accepted under all circumstances. They have been abandoned and expect to be rejected and so they test them, rarely in adoption homes have they been treated as that 'special loved one' so they behave in ways to see how far their new family will actually accept them. I hear this is quite common.
I would tend to agree with you on this, if I'm reading you right... I believe that Adoptees, by their very nature (with the exception of newborns) will
tend to have more emotional and psychological issues - statistically speaking. I'm just not convinced that semi-constant presence of a social worker will do a lot to alleviate the problem. Ultimately, IMO, it should be left to the parents to deal with - this is why you and I both agree that there should be significant "screening" done
prior to allowing the adoption in the first place. Beyond that, we are now simply arguing about "degrees" of assistance / intrusion. (depending on your point of view)
Do I think all parents should have to go through a monitoring system? No.
Why not? Wouldn't this be helpful, using the same logic you use to defend "monitoring" of Adoptees? How could it hurt? Plus, if I read Asguards post correctly, (always a tricky endeavor j/k), Australia does just that, and for one year, same as you are suggesting for Adoptees.
But adopted children are indeed special, their needs are different, they do not have the natural sense of kin and placement within a family unit. They are alone. They know they are alone.
...
Wouldn't this depend upon the age of the Adoptee? I would think that the degree of the negative behavior that you describe would generally tend to directly correlate with the age of the child when they are adopted. Would you agree with this? (e.g. Would a 3 day old infant know the difference until the parents decide to tell them?)
If the family is especially loving and in tune to what can occur it is usually resolved within time, if the family has no idea of what is going on with the child then they can become frustrated, impatient and disappointed.
(emphasis mine) Have you ever met a parent? (just kidding) However, I would say that this statement would be equally true if applied across the entire spectrum of parents.
Its not easy. I know a woman, not the one I mentioned before, who has a Khmer child who was born with all sorts of issues which didn't present themselves until the child was four or five.
Note that this is beyond your suggested length of monitoring time. (One year)
The mother is dealing with it in a way that any natural mother would deal with it. Does she ever get so frustrated that she wishes the child would disappear? Yes. Does she ever show this? No. She's just like any mom taking the good with the bad and spending a lot of money to make sure this little girl named Bopha receives the best care possible for all of her issues.
Same as any other family, right?
When I go into their home what I witness is a family, like any other family but evidently this isn't always the case. Sometimes a newly adopted child can breed resentment in their new parents who are feel guilt and are ill equipped to deal with the situation, its at those times they will need help and intervention, for themselves as well as the child.
Again, same goes for many families consisting only of "naturally" born children.
You don't need constant monitoring, what you do need are realistic expectations of what can go wrong and providing enough information so the parents can know when its time to ask for help and let them know that it is not a failure on their part or the child if they need to seek help.
Same for "normal" families.
Its about availability of outside intervention I am speaking of specifically.
I contend said "availability" is contingent upon available resources. If being a social worker (or whatever equivalent term you prefer) paid $1,000,000.00 a year, I am quite sure there would be an over-abundance of "availability of outside intervention". Couple that with a few billion dollars worth of advertising (TV, newspaper, etc) and everyone would know that this sort of help is available. But, sadly, the resources are not available.
Yes I am but it doesn't occur with all adoptive parents, sometimes even to the surprise of the new caregivers they do not bond with the child...
Happens with biological parents as well - just not as often.
It happens more often than is discussed but that does not mean that there are not responsible, loving caregivers who take a child and bond with it and think of it as 'their family' come what may. The love is there and the care is there. I have seen this often in Cambodia but there are also those who go to Cambodia, adopt a child and then find they are completely unable to cope with the situation and then say 'who the hell is this kid anyway?'.
I would wager that it happens even
more, percentage wise, with "natural" families. Even disregarding the relatively lower rate of reporting, look at how many families
do encounter situations where either a parent, child, or both end up in counseling, institutions or jail (for abuse, etc.). I would be much more likely to side with your proposal if it was meant to apply across the board - including children living with their biological parents. I think it's the inconsistency thing that bothers me the most...
Then they blame culture or 'differences' and all sorts of bullshit, this is why there needs to be a monitoring system for the adopted. Why? Because these kids are born without kin, they are thrusted out of their culture, they live in families that look different, they are sometimes made to feel different. Its worthy of special attention precisely because you don't want to scar a child with another rejection and another abandonment which they will then internalize and think it is their fault, their defect and live in shame.
I can understand this, and would agree. Blaming "culture" is much easier than shouldering the responsibility of your own parenting skills (or lack thereof) that led to such a bad situation. Also, children with no other immediate kin, especially if racial differences are in play, are probably much more likely to have issues. However, I think the same applies to all families. (except the racial part, of course) To a child, I would imagine the worst nightmare possible would be abandonment. This is going to vary with age of the Adoptee of course - I would think an infant would be more resilient to changes in the family structure than, say, an eight year old. But do we know this for sure? Are there field studies available to dispute or back up this notion of mine? I don't know, wondering if you have heard of any?
As an aside, I did think of a potentially economical solution to what you are seeking. What if adoptive families were required to install web-cams in several rooms of their homes as a condition of adoption? Then you could employ monitoring on a random basis or 24/7 if necessary. Intrusion into privacy? Of course - but then again, so are weekly visits from a social worker. At least this way you wouldn't be interfering with the family's schedules, and they would have
no time to prepare or "fake" things as they may under the current situation. We have this technology, why not utilize it? I mean, there is precedent - think of all the "cam girl" (porno) houses out there on the net now - just cams for voyeurs to watch chicky's regular daily routines. Watching adoptive families would certainly represent a more noble use of these cameras, yes? What do you think of this idea?
Now, having said all that, I am strongly against putting web cams in an adoptive family's home - just to be clear...