As I am wont to do, I'm going to copy and paste a final essay. This one was for Sociology 1000. Its main focus is adoption (obviously). I'm warning you now, its 10 pages).
1. Introduction to the Issue
In April of 2010, a grandmother said farewell to her daughter's adopted son as he boarded a plane for Russia. He had a one way ticket. In a letter to Russia's child protection ministry, the mother claimed the boy was violent and she had been lied to by Russian officials about his mental state, which had been deemed normal. [CNN news] Since 1996, “at least 14 children have been killed abroad […], according to Moscow officials” [BBC news]. Most of those deaths occurred in the United States. What would drive a parent to kill their child? The fact that the child was adopted may account for some or all of the reason.
Adoption has probably been going on since the beginning of human creation but the formal system we enjoy today came about around the time of the Industrial Revolution, where there were many homeless children. Adoption really came about after orphanages filled up and adults realized that the orphanages were not benefiting the children in the long run. This prompted the government to set up adoption, so that children may be part of loving homes. The reality is that “the family was set up as a social service agency, albeit a small one” (Pivnick 2010). Looking back, the government really began adoption when it ran out of funding to take care of all the children that needed to not live with their biological parents.
The people who put children into the adoption cycle and the people who adopt the children both claim they are doing it for the benefit of the child. They figure they are preventing the child from living an unpleasant life, probably on the streets or with abusive parents. It sounds like a fairytale, almost. Many people find it to be just that, too. After adoption, many things can go wrong. This essay endeavors to discover what goes wrong in adoption, whether it is a flaw in the system or adoptive parents, and what can be done to fix these problems so that no more children will be murdered by their adoptive parents, who are supposed to love and protect them like a natural parent.
In order to answer these questions, two factors will be examined. First, some of the most common problems that are experienced by the child and adopted parents will be analyzed. It will be discussed whether these problems arise because of the adoption situation or because of some flaw in the adoption system. In order to discover the truth about the adoption situation, one must go back to the birth mother and find out why she gave up her child because this not only can influence a child later but it is also a telling sign about the adoption system. Finally, methods to remedy problems in the adoption will be discussed. There has to be something a person can do to prevent parents from killing their adoptive children.
2. Literature Review of the Issue
Many problems can arise from adoption, whether it be behavior problems from the children or the adoptive parents not feeling attached to their children. Such problems are toxic to the family setting but, in the case of a family that has not bonded, they can even be deadly. If adoption is the cause of this strife, then it should be stopped because it is no longer in the child's best interest, an idea that is spouted by adoptive parents and adoption agencies. Researchers have been looking into the problems adoption causes for many years, no doubt prompted by those who nay say adoption. The theory has changed over time, as society has changed in its beliefs, but the current emerging theory, which is very popular to study, is that a child needs to be given time to grieve for his or her situation.
In “Learning Adoption,” Dr. Pivnick cites several sources when he talks about the loss that children experience during the adoption process. He says that “adopted children are variously viewed as having sustained multiple losses” (Pivnick 2010) and credits Nickman's 1985 work Pscyhoanal. Study of the Child. Indeed, they have lost their birth parents, the person they might have been, and numerous others that are unique to each child, such as an aid at the orphanage that had been their caregiver for years. He concludes, however, that the mourning process that is unique to adopted children is merely a part of a healthy process and even hints that maybe the problem is with the person who is psychoanalyzing the child and family rather than with the adoption. “Learning Adoption” is not merely about the losses a child feels but how society comes to perceive those things as a loss and how that child has fit into society historically. In the Biblical era, adopted children were those children born to a man and a woman not his wife but were brought up by the man's wife. They generally had lower social status, except where God intervened, and any children the wife bore later were favored above the adopted child. The adopted child still had a higher social status than he or she would have otherwise; adoption was a way to raise one's status in Biblical times. In today's society, it is generally believed that a poor child is adopted by a rich family, thus also elevating the adopted child's social status. Through research, Dr. Pivnick concludes that there is no biological difference between adopted and biological children and that the way each adopted child copes with his or her situation is indicative of how successful the adoption was, i.e. how well adjusted to society the child is as an adult. (Pivnick 2010)
Another doctor, whose article is less research and more experience with treating adopted children who seem to be having problems at home, concludes that adjusting to being adopted can be aided through therapy. It is indeed important the author, Dr. Kupfermann, says that the child be well adjusted in order to lead a healthy childhood and life. Dr. Kupfermann also describes the problems that an adopted child faces, the problems that have been referred to above. Most of the problems stem from what doctors call “the primal wound” (Kupfermann 2010), which refers to the adopted child being separated from his or her birth mother. From this stems behavior problems, frustration, and pain which can be a circle of more anxiety for the entire family. Frustrated children act out, which sometimes cause adopted parents to feel as if there is no connection. It should be noted that Dr. Kupfermann and Dr. Pivnick both caution therapists and adoptive families from supposing everything stems from this primal wound. Children are sometimes obstinate and exhibit other incorrect behavior, a natural part of childhood that both biological and adopted children exhibit. Adopted children do tend to “be more dependent than other children on validation of and empathy for their feelings of loss and abandonment” (Kupfermann 2010). This may make adopted children more clingy and attention seeking than biological children, making more of a strain on adopted parents.
An adoptive parent, a sociologist named Josephine Ruggiero, recounts her story following the 7 year old boy being sent back to Russia. She adopted three children from Russia and, although they were all under five years of age, her family had an incredibly difficult time. Generally, when the children are that young, it is easier to help them adjust. Ms. Ruggiero says, however, that even now her relationship with the children is strained, even though they are outwardly attributes to society. Her reasons for why some adoptions fail has three parts. First, as mentioned above, the adoptive parents “are not adequately prepared in the pre-adoption phase” (Ruggiero 2010). Even if the adoptive parents have raised children before, they may not fully realize the extent of “the kinds of emotional struggles their children might face” (Ruggiero 2010) because institutionalized children do face more struggles adjusting than a biological child who has always known a family. Second, despite what many agencies say, the adoptive parents still “often receive incomplete or even false medical and background information” (Ruggiero 2010) which means that some parents adopt children, not knowing that the child has a serious illness or is at risk for a serious illness. Lastly, as also mentioned above, “there is a lack of postadoptive services specializing in behavioral issues” (Ruggiero 2010) so that adopted children do not always receive the kind of therapy they may need. Not all therapists are qualified to deal with adopted children and even the ones that do have experience sometimes mistake normal childhood behavior with misbehavior caused by adoption. As a solution to the many problems faced by adoptive parents, Ms. Ruggiero suggests that children from be put in a foster care home before being adopted, especially to a foreign country, to lessen the shock of going from an orphanage to a family where there are a multitude of roles they have never previously been expected to perform. (Ruggiero 2010) Such a measure would, perhaps, make life easier for both adoptive parents and adopted children in the beginning of the adoption, at the very least, because it is very “hard to take strangers and try to make them into people who love you” (Ruggiero 2010) for both parties.
3. Positive and Negative Opinions of the Issue
Adoption is not generally considered a bad thing. In fact, it is considered good because it is helping children who would otherwise grow up in orphanages or on the street. The reality is that adoption is a surprisingly contested topic. Birthmothers are strongly against adoption because they say that they were coerced out of their children, who were then put into corrupt situations. Adoption agencies are for it, of course, because they get money from adoptions. Adoptors are generally for adoption, although there seems to be a portion who cautions that therapy must be used in the process. Adoptees are divided, more than likely because of their personal experiences. In all cases, it is the personal experience of the individual that dictates the stance towards adoption.
Perhaps the most interesting negative opinion of the entire adoption process comes from the women who gave up their children. Reading through the webpages of “exiled mothers,” what women who gave up their children for adoption call themselves, shows how strongly linked these women still feel to their babies. The faq section of exiledmothers.com states that “adoption is not a choice, it is what happens when there is no hope and no help. […] Only abandoned mothers abandon babies” (First Mothers Action 2003). When women give up their babies for adoption, it is generally because they are coerced into it by someone who is telling them that they are unfit parents or that the child would be better off if it were adopted. The language of the quote links the mother and baby and the language of the entire article is the same. According to these women, coercion is still a force in women giving up their babies, a factor that adds to the grief of these women over what was done; they claim that some women are made to sign the papers to give away their child while still under the anesthetics, immediately after childbirth. These exiled mothers are for reuniting, which is considered a healthy thing in order for every member of the triad in adoption (birth mother, adoptee, and adoptor) and may heal wounds such as the above mentioned primal wound (Lifton 2010). Their literature seems to suggest they are for adoption, some of the women having adopted children themselves, but against the coercive way in which mothers give up their babies. It should be noted that the majority of these women are North American although they agree that all women are coerced out of their babies, often for the money the baby will bring or the better life that baby would have, according to the adoption agencies.
The adoption agencies can be sketchy at worst but there are also good agencies, as well as government agencies that aid in adoption. It should be stated that there is an understanding by all parties that there exists a black market in babies, with some agencies referred to as gray market, indicating that they operate on the fringes of acceptability. The agencies connect people who want to adopt children with the children or birth mother. For this service, they charge a fee. It can be said, and is said profusely by birth mothers, that agencies sell babies. Either way, adoption is good to this group.
Along the same lines, adoption is generally good to adoptors. It is always a good thing to would be adoptive parents, or else they probably wouldn't go through with it, but the story can change after they deal with the difficulties of the adopted child. These parents may have no previous child rearing experience, children are usually difficult, whether they be adopted or not. In this case, generally, the adoptive parents are still for adoption but are more hesitant to recommend it profusely.
Adoptees share this seesaw of feelings about adoption that depends on their experience. Well adjusted children look favorably on adoption and sometimes even adopt children of their own. If a child has a bad experience, however, it colors their feelings against adoption because they believe that their experience was the rule and not the exception. In an article entitled “Myra's Story: A Life Narrative as it Unfolds in the Treatment and Journey of an Adopted Woman,” Sandra Rosengarten describes the life of one such adoptee named Myra. Myra was never outright abused but she always felt suppressed and as if she did not belong. These feelings followed her into adulthood and were the cause of her many poor relationships. While Myra never speaks outright against adoption, she makes it clear that she believes no child should suffer like she did and she has empathy with other adoptees. (Rosengarten 2010)
These personal experiences color the way individuals view the topic of adoption; if a person has a good situation, they are for it and vice versa. There may even be an black or gray market adoption agency member who disagrees with the practice and is against adoption for that reason that they saw the worst aspects of it. Generally, though, adoption agencies are for adoption because it benefits them and adoptors and adoptees are for or against it based on their personal experiences. Birth mothers, for the greater part, are against adopting out their children. Because those birth mothers are the source for children, it stands to reason that adoption itself hangs in the balance.
4. Conclusion and Your Opinion of the Issue
Adoption is not generally the first topic that is thought of when people discuss controversial topics but it is just that. Adoption is difficult for all parties. It is, at least, better for the children than not being able to take care of themselves and ending up on the street, more than likely, as happens after a child staying in an orphanage. The government saw that children raised in orphanages did not become contributing members of society and adoption was born (Pivnick 2010). It sounds innocent enough, that children without a home are taken into caring homes and given a chance at life but there are some flaws with this thinking, those flaws being what makes adoption a controversial topic.
The birth mothers, who call themselves exiled mothers because they were exiled from their children's lives, say that adopting out a child is wrong because of the coercion that causes a mother to give up her child and because of the situation that their child can end up in after he or she is adopted. Many birth mothers claim that they were forced to give up their child for adoption so that an adoption agency can sell their child (First Mothers Action 2003). It is less an argument against adoption itself and more against the practices that occur before the child is adopted by adoptive parents. Their argument against adoption is that the practice implies that they are unfit mothers and the adoptive parents to whom they give up the child might be worse for the child. Many of these women go on to have successful families so they are clearly not unfit mothers but this falls under the coercion aspect. A method of coercion is to tell young mothers that they are unfit, or that their children could have a better life with another couple (First Mothers Action 2003). On the website exiledmothers.com, there was a story of a woman who gave her child up to a family but the adoptive mother turned out to be a drug addict and repeatedly endangered the life of the little girl. It is here where the entire argument against adoption is perfectly valid; children are not always better off being placed with people just because that person wants a child and can afford one.
Adoptive parents are generally not prepared for “the kinds of emotional struggles their children might face” (Russian Adoptive Problems). First, adoptive parents usually have never had children before so they are unsure of how to parent, let alone how to parent a child with higher emotional needs that arise from adoption. Second, even for a person who has raised other children, the needs of an adopted child are unique. The needs of all children are unique but an adopted child needs to be able to adjust to life in a family and find their identity as part of that family, a process that can be difficult on the adoptive parents and the children alike. It is to the credit of adoptive parents that they manage to overcome the normal difficulties of parenting as well as issues caused by adoption and, despite this essay and the numerous examples of adoption failures, most adoptions are successful.
The flaw is not with the parents or the children in the adoption system but it is the adoption system itself. Here, the birth mothers are inarguably correct in hating the system. There probably is coercion from adoption agencies, who also often fail the adoptive parents as well. The adoptive parents are lied to about their children's medical and family background, or not told at all, and not given additional aid when the adoption does not turn out like they think it will. There is a misconception among adoptors that they will bring the child home and the child will fit in, everything will be okay. The reality is that if a person brings home a puppy, even, it needs time to adjust and needs to learn where it fits into the family. Bringing home a child is even more complicated with that because a child is an intelligent being who is capable of reasoning out the situation and reacting to it. Most often, the agency merely apologizes profusely and hangs up the phone (Kershaw 2010). If there were more support for parents, perhaps tragedies could be avoided, either the tragedy of a family of strife or the tragedy of a parent killing the adopted child. If a parent kills a child, it could only be because they feel life will not get any better unless the child leaves and they have no idea how to end the adoption. If adoption agencies kept up with parents, they would better be able to spot possible problems and avert them. If an adoption agency had kept up with a woman from Tennessee, a little boy wouldn't have been flown back to Russia and driven to a government agency by a stranger, with a note from his adoptive mother in his pocket saying how he wasn't what she had wanted.
