e-mail
Continued from here …
So, evolutionary scientists would say that adoption makes no sense, and as far as evolution goes, it doesn’t, but this study has shown that adoptive parents do, indeed, invest in their children “as much if not more” than bio parents do.
This is NOT a slam on bio parents; it is simply a statement of the facts of the study as they found them. The scientific parameters are there for the reading, by the way.
The report also suggest reasons for the “as much if not more” conclusion:
Individuals who are not granted the title of “parent” via biology may actually fulfill (and even exceed) the accompanying expectations better than those who have been accorded this title. Research on adoption suggests that three potential factors may combine to create this effect.
First, the primacy of genetic ties in American society may create a social climate in which adoptive family structures are devalued (Lebner 2000; Miall 1987; Nelkin and Lindee 1995; Wegar 2000). The stigma surrounding their family form may cause many adoptive parents to struggle with presenting themselves as “real” parents (Bartholet 1993; March 1997; Ward 1981).
Second, adoptive parents are likely to encounter and incorporate the belief that adoptive children will face intellectual, social, and emotional difficulties growing up (National Adoption Attitudes Survey 2002; Priel et al. 2000; Verhulst et al. 1990; Waggenspack 1998). Sensitivity to their children’s real or perceived needs may lead adoptive parents to allocate resources to allay such difficulties and absolve themselves of any blame.
Finally, adoptive parents may enter into parenthood with greater levels of commitment than do other parents. The lengthy adoptive process itself may facilitate parental investment in children (Rothman 2005)
They talk about a “growing recognition of the strengths demonstrated by alternative family structures” and cite a study showing that, “the resources provided by parents in biracial families are generally greater than those provided by parents of corresponding races in monoracial families.”
Is it an uncomfortable shock to learn that families facing racial issues do a better job of preparing their children to deal with potential problems associated with race than white families do?
So, why the all the backlash over something so innocuous? Where’s the problem in finding that adoptive families try really hard to do a good job with the kids they adopt? Why isn’t this good news?
It’s easy enough to suss out Rush Limbaugh’s angle. He’s a rabid dog of a homophobe, and part of the conclusion reached in the report is that gay parents aren’t terrible. That alone is enough to have the Limbaugh bouncing off the walls, leaving a mess of greasy splat marks behind.
(I have some great Rush Limbaugh stories, by the way. He got his start in my home town, and I can honestly say, but without one drop of pride or smugness, I knew him when. No doubt, he is quite the entertainer, and his rise to the top of the talk radio world is a perfect example of an adage I will not repeat here.)
Here on the blogs and other places around the Web, birth mothers have voiced concern that this study may be used to coerce women into relinquishment. That is a circumstance that happens with or without facts, and has everything to do with a whole lot of details that have nothing to do with research.
For expectant mothers considering adoption for their child, can more information, knowledge and study be a bad thing?
Might learning that adoptive families, on the whole, tend to do all they can to care for children and help them deal with the realities of their lives help women who choose to make an adoption plan do so with less fear for their child, therefore less stress and more likelihood of a successful relationship? Would not telling them this serve any purpose?
Since this report is not about better or worse, and since coercing women to relinquish is a completely separate topic, and since there are no plans for a test or license to biologically reproduce, is there any chance that adoptive parents and birth parents just might be able to agree that knowledge and information is not evil, that it’s okay to acknowledge that adoptive families can offer a healthy life for children even thought they don’t share DNA, and that admitting that some people shouldn’t have kids is probably a sensible POV?
This report is subject to interpretation like anything else, and the strong implication is definitely there that adoptive parents are better. It stands to reason that parents who do all that it says adoptive parents do might be “better” parents. There is nothing innocous in this study, nor do I take it as hard scientific fact.
The potential harm is that it reinforces that “perfect” adoptive parent theory. Read the ads about “inding perfect parents for your child.” This study is more of that.
I agree that information and knowledge is good – this study is suspect in imparting that in my opinion. I do agree that adoptive parents can be good parents, and that some people make terrible parents and should not parent – adoptive or birth.
Jan,
I’m confused. Could you please show me what in this report you are interpreting as the stong implication, what you find as not innocuous … meaning that the information is somehow dangerous … where it reinforces the “perfect adoptive parent theory”, is not good science or suspect in information and knowledge?
I have gone through it back and forth and can’t see where your comments are coming from … if they are reflecting on the study.
If we’re talking about the research, I’d like to do that. It’s there for anyone to see, so direct quotes are easy to substantiate. If it’s anecdotal evidence and personal opinion, that’s a different kettle of fish and should be identified as such.
Rejecting science out of hand is done all the time, but I’m personally not likely to be easily convinced that the world is flat by someone’s dedication to the idea.
Heck, I for one am glad to see at least one study that says adopted children will not be irreparably damaged by evil adoptive parents.
“..that it’s okay to acknowledge that adoptive families can offer a healthy life for children even thought they don’t share DNA, and that admitting that some people shouldn’t have kids is probably a sensible POV?” Well said and I completely agree.
Sandra,
Thanks for articulating what I was thinking. I found the study to be informative and pro-adoption. I was shifting a bit uncomfortably yesterday reading Jan’s blog about Rush. Me — a conservative Midwestern girl, definitely raised Republican! My parents would be shocked!
I just don’t see how adoptive families are unraveling the fabric of American society. Or how this study implies that children should be taken away from their biological parents in mass and turned over to adoptive families. Yes, I realize Rush is hyping all that for entertainment purposes.
But what’s wrong with recognizing that adoptive parents work at it harder, on the whole, than bio parents? I don’t understand how that’s a dangerous thought. We have so much more to work harder at — cultural differences, grief and loss issues, attachment issues, and in many cases special needs/developmental delays. That doesn’t necessarily equate to “better” parents — just ones who put in more effort because there’s more to put in effort on.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need adoption. But, we all know that will never happen.
In my personal experience, it’s definitely true that I’m working much harder now than ever before. Bio parenting was a challenge. Step parenting proved even a greater challenge. But nothing can compare with my adoptive parenting experience.
And my personal belief is that adoptive parents are less likely to interface with other parents about their children, because our families are so often misunderstood.
Julie, You are right, there is nothing wrong or “dangerous” as some suggest with acknowledging that adoptive parents are working hard(er). Of course we have had to meet a whole other set of standards/requirements in order to parent. I don’t mind that, what I do mind is all the bio parents who get up in arms when you suggest that some of those things might help them (and their children) as well.
Go figure.