Hemlock B Bootsalotta

Guys grabbing their kids and running to other countries is pretty common.

From:

I don't think it's particularly good for an infant to spend the first 3 months of its life with a temporary caregiver who would only be torn away and replaced by others. The initial bonding is so crucial to attachment, it seems.

Perhaps there's an argument here for some required (or strongly strongly suggested) counseling for pre-partum mothers who plan to adopt out their children, but I don't see a solution in further burdening the already heaving and inadequate foster care system.

From:

Yes, exactly. They recognize now, most places, that separation after bonding is traumatic for an infant, and can even result in attachment disorder or other problems long term. It's better to place the child with the adoptive parents, who should be adult enough to be able to hand them back, painful as it is, if the birth mother changes her mind within the allowed time.

I don't have all the details of this case, but I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a wait time before the adoption was final. I suspect it's something like that other case several years ago, where the birth mother changed her mind, the adoptive parents refused to return the child even though they had no legal right to keep her, they fought in court for years, and the birth mother eventually won. Sounds like in this case they made some kind of visitation arrangement rather than fighting over custody for years.

From:

who should be adult enough to be able to hand them back, painful as it is, if the birth mother changes her mind within the allowed time.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. If the birth mom should change her mind, the infant has still bonded to someone else, and now has to bond again (in your line of thinking). Then you also have a heartbroken set of parents on the other end and probably a huge court case. Could YOU hand back a baby so easily? One you've waited not 9 months, but years and years for? I doubt it.

From:

It wouldn't be easy, I understand that very well. But adoptive parents are supposed to understand those risks.

And yes, the shift back to the birth mother would be traumatic for the baby. However, I also believe that the baby bonds with the mother before birth. Babies are born knowing their mother's sounds and smells, and they show that (this has been well studied). A separation at birth is, at least somewhat, traumatic in any case. A return to the birth mother, of whom they probably still have visceral memories, within the first few weeks, is probably *less* traumatic than a switch from foster parents to adoptive ones.

Also, it's a balance -- there has to be a balance -- between the baby's needs and the parents'. The child, being a child, is paramount, but the birth mother's needs and rights can't be completely ignored, either. A wait time before finalizing a decision that major and permanent and emotional is more than reasonable, I think it's essential.

Meanwhile, placing the baby with the parents who will *probably* keep her minimizes the risk to her of an(other) attachment trauma. The alternative, placing her in foster care, *guarantees* that she will have that trauma.

From:

The alternative, placing her in foster care, *guarantees* that she will have that trauma.
I really have to disagree on this one. Since I've been through it myself, I can tell you that the 90-day foster care part isn't a trauma. Being separated from one's birth mother is rough, I do know that, but for many reasons, not just what happens right out of the womb (but I'm sure that has something to do with it). I'm sorry I'm just annoyed at all this conjecture about something that people don't really know, or understand. I've been there, THAT WAS ME, and those 90 days? Cakewalk. Really.

From:

I'm sorry, but how can you know that?
You can know that it hasn't affected you long term. But you can't actually remember what your experience was *at the time*. Can you?

From:

Possibly. But if I can't know it, having been there, how can you even begin to think you can?

From:

sharkskitten.livejournal.com

adoptive parents are supposed to understand those risks.

Gosh, i hate to speak up, but...as an adoptive mom, myself, i have to throw in my own experience.

i could not stand to have my daughter placed with me, and then have her ripped away. As it was, she recognized me as her mom very early in the adoption process and it was heartwrenching to have to hand her back to her caregiver at the end of our visits. Kinder Goth screamed in rage and clung to me. She knew i was her mom and that was that.

A child is not a commodity. Unfortunately, in the US kids are treated that way. Parental rights are more important than the child's rights. And i feel that it's wrong.

What's important is what is in the child's best interest. Having the money to adopt does not make you the best parent and neither does the ability to procreate.

From:

She knew i was her mom and that was that.

It's wonderful that you found each other.

For Jenn's most recent birthday her father invited me out for dinner with them and the rest of her family. At one point her grandmother pulled me aside and said, "We all love her very much." It choked me up so much I couldn't even answer her.

From:

50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com

Wow. That's just....wonderful. Both that they love her so much and that they're so comfortable with you.

I'm tearing up just thinking about it.

From:

As one of the infants in question, let me tell you I was fine.
I'm in no way any less attached to my parents. In fact, I'm more attached to them than a lot of bio kids I know.

From:

I'm sure that most do turn out fine.
But there are some who don't.
For others, I think it's just less than ideal.
I think it's worthwhile to try to get as close to "ideal" as possible, under whatever circumstances, for all children.
That's all.

From:

I think it's worthwhile to try to get as close to "ideal" as possible
I think that's what they did. I don't know if it's still around, BTW. This was in the 70s. You mention taking into account the needs of the birth-mother and I agree with you on that. I think this 90 day deal does that. It also seems a good way to protect the adoptive parents. I know, at least with my parents, how crushed they would have been if they'd had me for 63 days and then had to give me back. Once I was there, it was guaranteed I was there to stay.

From:

Yeah, I've heard some very heartbreaking stories from adoptive parents. On the other hand, missing the first three months of their child's life, and the experience of having their child as a newborn, would have to be painful, too. And, I don't think we need to protect the adoptive parents from all pain and risk. No one else in the situation is protected from that, after all. It's heartbreaking, painful, and risky all around. No getting around that, and no reason the adoptive parents shouldn't share in that.

I'm sure they did do their best, back then (and I think it is still done that way in some cases, just a lot fewer now). I just think we know more now. Some children do grow up with attachment disorder, in spite of being settled into wonderful homes by the time they're a few months old. Not most, but some. To me, this (along with what my heart tells me when I imagine myself in these babies' places) is clear evidence that the experience is traumatic for many, if not most, babies. For most, not traumatic enough to have lasting consequences, but still traumatic. So I think it's worthwhile to minimize the risk of that to them, as much as we can.

From:

If you're thinking of attachment disorders though, wouldn't that rule out all adoption? Of course, that's not what you're really saying, but there is a slippery slope argument there.

To me, this (along with what my heart tells me when I imagine myself in these babies' places) is clear evidence that the experience is traumatic for many, if not most, babies
You just said that you think most are fine? Or do you mean that most are traumatized but then become fine later. Sorry, bit confused as to what you're saying.

Also, this is just a personal thing, but the reason I keep responding is that I find it very weird that a stranger on the internet is telling me how I, and people like me, must have had traumas that, from my experience, I either didn't have, or they didn't affect me much. It's creepy to hear "well you were totally traumatized" from someone else.

From:

If you're thinking of attachment disorders though, wouldn't that rule out all adoption? Of course, that's not what you're really saying, but there is a slippery slope argument there.

I'm just saying, minimize the risk as much as we reasonably can. I don't think it would be reasonable to rule out all adoption, obviously. To minimize the number of changes a baby is likely to have to go through, though, I do think is reasonable and worthwile.

And, I mean minimize the traumatic experiences at the time, as well as minimize the risk of long-term damage.

You just said that you think most are fine? Or do you mean that most are traumatized but then become fine later. Sorry, bit confused as to what you're saying.

I mean most are traumatized -- the experience is painful -- at the time, but most turn out fine in the long run.

But, even if we *knew* that a particular baby would turn out fine (say we had some way to test for a predisposition to attachment disorder, or something), I don't think that would mean that we shouldn't still do what we can to minimize their pain, trauma, or discomfort in the here and now.

I don't mean to be coming off as telling you what your experience was, truly. I just don't think either of us can *know* how you experienced it as an infant. I do find it very hard to believe that any infant could go through a separation without some very real emotional pain. Exactly what that experience is, though -- how much pain, how long? -- I'm sure is highly individual.

And, I also think it's valid to say that none of this really happened to *you*, in the sense that "you" are the collection of experiences that you can remember. It's more like, this happened to the infant who eventually became you. We know that nothing that happened to her stopped her from becoming a pretty okay you, and that's great! But if she was here today, I'd still want to make things as nice, and as low-risk, as possible for her, in all ways.

I hope that makes sense...

From:

Thanks for that last bit. I appreciate that. I guess a lot of me is really thinking more of my parents and how it would affect them if I had been taken away. No, I don't know how or if I was traumatized as an infant, but I can tell you that it's not lasting, at least for me. Hell, I was traumatized when I broke my toe at 3, but I don't need to see a shrink about it. ;)

I also bristle at the notion that I could have attachment difficulties with my parents (though I don't think you said that). That sucks to hear, and I think any kid who's adopted and loves their parents would feel awful seeing that.

I dunno, this whole thread feels like being talked about in the third person, even though that's not what you (all) are trying to do. It's a very, very odd feeling.

From:

I guess a lot of me is really thinking more of my parents and how it would affect them if I had been taken away.

*nod* And since you know and love them, that probably affects you on a more personal level than even thinking of the abstraction of your infant self.

Think about the foster parents, too, though. (Yours and others.) Even when you know the separation is coming, it's still got to be heartbreaking. That's one reason I'm not a foster parent. I don't think I could go through that again and again.

It's a very, very odd feeling.

Hmm, I wonder if this is how men feel about circumcision threads.

From:

50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com

I also bristle at the notion that I could have attachment difficulties with my parents (though I don't think you said that). That sucks to hear, and I think any kid who's adopted and loves their parents would feel awful seeing that.

Your relationship with your adoptive parents seems to be a whole lot stronger and healthier than mine with my biological parents.

From:

Research which describes a trend does not, of course, encompass every single individual outcome possible. And of course, the converse is also true - IOW, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

From:

Very sorry I don't fit the polite confines of your "data".

From:

Why should that bother you? It's research that describes something that occurs in a percentage of infants/children. If it doesn't describe you, congratulations, well done, be glad that you're happy and well-adjusted. So why does the fact that some people have a different outcome which suggests that a practice you did well in spite of might not be the best one apparently upset you so? It's like being pissed off about data showing that seatbelts increase the survivability of car accidents because you survived an accident without wearing one.

From:

It's not really like the car crash analogy at all. You're talking about a person's psyche.

What you're saying is "kids that this happens to are screwed up because of it." To me, it's important to say "Woah that's not right, at least not 100% of the time!"

I take it personally because it's a personal thing, which is why I'll come back with anecdotal evidence.

From:

Presumably you and any others reading this know that when research describes a psychological or sociological trend, it NEVER attempts to say that something is true 100% of the time.

From:

So because we all know that there's no such thing as "100%" I should just shut up?

Why not listen to what I have to say? Eeesh.

From:

You're going way out of your way to read a lot of things into my comments that I haven't even said.

From:

Then break it down for me.
Really.

From:

What would you like broken down?

From:

To be fair, her original comment was, "This isn't good for kids" not "They will be screwed up by it."

Not everybody get sick or killed or screwed up by things that are bad for us. That doesn't neutralize that unhealthiness.

From:

The part I was really on about was the bit about how the first three months "seem" to be crucial for attachment.
To which I said "bullshit."
To which I got a bunch of interesting responses from one, and a bunch of "You're being illogical Captain" from another.

From:

"Seem" is about as accurate as you ever going to get when you are talking about psychology. Humans are never identical and rarely predictable.

I read both

angilong and

elusis as saying the same thing - that it may not be the healthiest choice for babies in general. That doesn't mean that any given individual isn't going to be absolutely fine.

From:

The system was designed long before there was much knowledge of infant psychology. I can see it being implemented as a way to handle the fact that a lot of women change their mind after the fact.

From:

Absolutely.

It's a shame we stil don't have a solution that is best for everyone involved.

From:

50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com

This isn't really relevant to the adoption discussion, but I think it's interesting to note that there are lots of circumstances that can disrupt the ideal bonding process.

I was born 2.5 months prematurely and spent the first 3-4 months of my life in an incubator hooked up to feeding tubes and breathing machines. Not ideal for infant bonding but essential for keeping me alive.

From:

Absolutely.

From:

rivka.livejournal.com

The U.S. does have waiting periods before adoptions are final; I think each state makes their own rules about that. My understanding of this case is that the woman changed her mind within the waiting period. I don't know why custody is even in dispute.

From:

hellsop.livejournal.com

It varies by state, with about half having waiting periods between 3 and 10 days. Almost all of the rest do allow revocation of consent to be ordered by a court, but those usually require a reason like it was under duress or fraudulent in some way.

Almost all states, though, have a "no-sign" waiting period of a couple of days between starting the process and finalizing the concent to adopt. I wonder what happened to that..

From:

Woah. I didn't realise it was 12 hours!
Though how old are the babies? They're toddlers aren't they? Sorry, I've only heard about this case peripherally.

From:

Yep, they're 17 months old now. Apparently she's been trying to get them back legally ever since.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/01/02/twins.html

From:

emzebel.livejournal.com

I've done a little googling on this case, and it is not a fair representation of U.S. adoption practice.

Some states would have given the children back to the birth mother without question within the time frame that she requested them. But I agree that in this case, the process appears to have been broken.

From: