Unrelated Two (or More) At Once-Just Say NO
This practice that used to be frowned on by the majority of those in child welfare has now come back into vogue as adoption options decline. We believe that PAPs need to say NO to this practice. Our reasons are as follows.
If two (or more) are adopted at once:
1. Each child must give up on much-needed bonding time so the other child can also bond, leaving both bereft.
2. Each child is expected to automatically bond to the other one in addition to all family members, which can be impossible if their personalities/likes/ages are dissimilar, causing intense problems and resentment.
3. Each child will not be given adequate one-on-one time to learn English.
4. Each child’s unique medical needs might not be properly addressed, especially if one child’s needs are more severe than the other’s needs.
5. There is a greater need for APs to spread the finances, which does not guarantee any issues but certainly increases the risks .
6. If one or both of the children are special needs, having multiple adoptions at once is rarely in best interest of child, particularly as the agencies often choose the ONLY AP willing to take on these kids. This means that the kids needing the most experienced parents often are matched with parents with the least experience and/or excessive naiveté. Compounding the problem is when agencies downplay these special needs in order to get the kids adopted and rake in their fees.
7. The costs are much higher. In years past, there often were cost reductions for a special need child and/or two at once, but the new trend is to increase the cost (see recent Reece’s Rainbow cases and Kyrgyzstan cases.) It is all related to fees for the process and the agency and has nothing to do with care of the child. Most children are cared for in poor circumstances yet PAPs rarely question the mismatch of high fee and low quality of orphan care.
Conclusion: Adopting more than one unrelated child at once most always ONLY benefits the perceived financial or adoption completion time interest of the APs and/or the adoption agencies. It also benefits the country sending these kids, especially if they are special needs, as they are no longer responsible for paying for their care.
Do you think any of the above is truly in the best interest of the child?
Readers, please add any other points that we have missed.
REFORM Puzzle Piece
The Reece's Rainbow "Ministry" seems to be particularly bad about encouraging families to adopt more than one special needs (usually HIGH needs) child at a time:
1) The Unroe family is in the process of adopting FIVE children simultaneously (and already have 13 kids at home). A 1:9 ratio of caregivers to adults is well into "group home" territory:
http://godsrainbowsinourlives.blogspot.com/
2) The Evanson family is adoption 2 high-needs, special needs kids simultanously (and were mentioned in an earlier blog post) of Rally's:
http://addtothebeauty-evensen.blogspot.com/
3) The Burman family is adopting 2 more high-needs special needs children. This is in addition to the 2 SN kids they adopted in 2011 and 3 SN kids they adopted in 2010. Yes, a total of 6 adopted kids in less than 2 years. Plus they have several bio kids… again, bordering on child collector/group home territory:
http://www.atorchforteagan.blogspot.com/
carringtonscourage.blogspot.com
4) The Winkle family adopted 2 kids simultaneously in 2010 and disrupted one adoption less than six months later… yet "advocates" for others to adopt lots of kids at once:
http://noknots.blogspot.com/2011/10/story-you-have-been-waiting-for.html
5) Salem family adopted 2 SN kids in 2010:
nogreaterjoymom.com
6) Basil family adopted 2 SN kids, one in 2010 & one in 2011:
angeleyesadoption.blogspot.com
7) Cole family is adopting 2 high needs SN kids simultaneously:
http://4given2serve1god.blogspot.com/
8) Clanton family is also adoptin 2 high needs SN kids simultaneously:
http://www.myreallifebyyvonne.blogspot.com/
9) Pushed by RR to adopt 2 kids simultaneously (and it turns out one has both RAD and FASD, family didn't find out about these medical issues until the adoption was pretty much a done deal. Also, they gave their "facilitator" something like $20K in cash):
http://somewherebehindthemorning.blogspot.com/2012/01/just-saying.html
10) Adopted 2 SN kids from Ukraine less than a year ago, in the process of adopting 2 more SN kids from Ukraine (for a total of 4 in about 1 year):
http://www.weretakingbabysteps.blogspot.com/
11) Parents to 18 SN kids, adopting 4 more high-needs, SN kids from Bulgaria simultaneously:
http://thesousabrownfamily.blogspot.com/
12) Reed family has 18 kids, and is adopting 2 more high needs SN kids simultanously:
http://becausehefirstadoptedus.blogspot.com/
13) Edwards family, has 5 kids and is adopting 2 more high needs SN kids simultaneously:
http://dearlittlegirlofmine.blogspot.com/
14) Hills family has adopted 2 SN kids from Ukraine in 2010 and is in the process of adopting 2 more SN kids simultaneously;
http://www.findingrdaughter.blogspot.com/
15) Kirland family is adopting 2 SN kids simultanously:
http://thekirklandfamily-valkirk26.blogspot.com/
16) Archer family adopted 2 SN kids from Ukraine in 2010 and is in the process of adopting 3 more high needs SN kids from Ukraine.
Non-RR families:
Adopted 4 teenage children from Ukraine in 2011… and has distrupted 3 adoptions. Including one all of 7 weeks (35 days!! DAYS!!!) after getting back to the US. Also previously mentioned on your blog:
http://followinghiscall.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/taken-hostage-or-testing-our-love/
Pushed to adopt 2 kids from Ukraine simultaneously (both with RAD/FASD, not diagnosed until they were home in the US):
goldtorefine.blogspot.com
Adopted 5 kids from Haiti within 2 years (2 no longer live at home, both have RAD and sexually assaulted their siblings):
watchingthewaters.com
Renee Alan adopted 4 unrelated Reece’s Rainbow kids with high needs SN inside 6 months in a year or so back… and is now in Ukraine, with her husband & 4 kids, simultaneously adopting FOUR more unrelated high needs SN kids with other people’s money:
butbygraceitcouldbeme.blogspot.com
*sigh* And even though Renee Alan seems to realize that she was lucky with her first quadruple adoption and that this one will be “different” and “more intense” because the four new kids have more severe disabilities, she’s refusing to accept that things could go badly wrong as a result of this extremely high-risk decision. Not only could any of the new kids have even more complications than anticipated, but the previous kids could become less “easy” and “low key” under the stress of this huge change to the family dynamics.
Or that as her currently-adopted kids get older and bigger, the “manageable” issues she’s coping with will likely become UNMANAGEABLE, such as dealing with a rage/tantrum from a toddler with FASD and emotional regulation issues vs dealing with a 130 lb 13 year old with FASD and emotional regulation issues.
How will Renee SINGLE HANDEDLY manage all 8 kids while her hubby is at work?
How will Renee, say, go grocery shopping (without assistance from anybody else) with 8 SN kids, many of whom are unable to walk independently? What happens when the kiddos get too big for strollers?
How many bedrooms does Renee have? Because having a whack of institutionalized kids double-up in rooms in a recipe for disaster, e.g. kids sexually or physically assault their less mobile sibling while mommy and daddy sleep in another room.
Creepy that names and family situations are posted on a public blog as a negative without these families knowledge. SUCCESSFUL, HAPPY ADOPTIVE FAMILIES and THRIVING CHILDREN…being the major majority… I think it is desperately unfair to project personal limitations for caring for children on all adoptions. Sad, you obviously don't know the families that I do.
Except for the ones that are dead or disrupted. Or who never, EVER should’ve been approved to adopt yet again due to failing to mention little things like EXILING a kid to crisis respite indefinitely, adopting a kid domestically and being under investigation by CPS for medical neglect, like Shelly Burman.
That would be the Shelly Burman of carringtonscourage.blogspot.com who is supported Carolyn T’s little NGO who just this week arrive home with FOUR MORE unrelated high needs SN kids from Ukraine.
(No longer pick of the little, her adopted daughter Evelyn, is still reportedly in crisis respite. Indefinitely).
Carolyn T, what is creepy is that there are blogs like this at all AND they already are public. We did not make any private blog public. Where is your data that the "major majority" of these families have "thriving" children? We are seeing disruption after disruption. We hear from adult adoptees who were in these kinds of families. Again, this practice is not common and not allowed by most foster care systems and other countries never allow two or more unrelated at once. This is NOT within child welfare norm for GOOD reasons.
What on earth does Reece's Rainbow think they are doing? If they were "only in it for the children" surely you'd think there would be some sort of control on or better vetting of these collector families. There is no way that so many SN children adopted at once can get the attachment attention they will desperately need. I'd like to see these collector families tell the TRUTH about their daily routines and how much one-on-one time with their PARENTS these children get. Or are all the older children expected to do the parenting because their parents are too busy surfing the Internet or blogging about how great their families are?
Give me a break.
We live and share life with MANY families that have and THRIVE as a family and as an organization…when you are searching out negative you will find the negative…in ALL of life. It is extreme creeper to search out blogs of positive things and innocent families and twist them into negatives publicly…That is deceptive and weird IMHO… Blanket rules do not belong in adoption…case by case is a necessary rule of thumb. Where is YOUR data on the positive aspects?? I DISAGREE…BIG TIME… Your reasoning is WEAK at best as a blanket statement…..Again…when searching out dirt you will always find it…but this generalization is dangerous…and wrong.
Interesting…people that are unable to or not wanting to handle what some families choose….does not make whats happening in other families that is GOOD, not true. Sad assumptions. Again, projections.
Carolyn T, "Blanket rules do not belong in adoption"? I find THAT to be the scariest statement of them all. There has to be baseline checks and balances. We have pointed out many times that those baselines are not being kept in a frenzy of placing children with special needs. One example: We have seen a family adopt a child in a wheelchair and they don't even have a wheelchair accessible vehicle nor can they afford one and the SW APPROVED them quickly and wholeheartedly. If you give birth in a hospital, the hospital won't allow you to leave unless they inspect the infant car seat yet now you can adopt a child in a wheelchair WITHOUT means to transport the child. THAT is NOT in the best interest of that child.
Of course every child should be looked at in a case by case basis, but specifically which item in our list do you disagree with? Why should the adoptee have to AGAIN compromise his or her life in this new way to fit in with the APs worldview of having two or more at once? This is not "best interest" of the child.
Do you realize that EVERY country that has been shut down to adoption is because of the "DIRT" that the industry is shoveling out in the way that they are processing adoptions? You can either contribute to the "DIRT" or try to stop it. We choose the latter.
Carolyn T/1025 comment (we were posting at the same time so my last response was to your 1009 comment): Again you seem to not get the point, adoption should not be looked from what YOU as an AP choose, but should be looked at from the adoptee's point of view.
We are here because we feel that 9 areas of adoption need major reforms. We realize that many people are fine with the status quo.You seem to be one of them. What really is sad is that you don't seem to grasp the issues and you are the one that is making a lot of sad and dangerous assumptions about how the international adoption process is being implemented .
Like many others before you, we see that you are trying to make Adoption a scale in which you can put the good on one side and bad on the other and at the end of the day you can try to say that a certain number of good outweighs the bad. The bad is what is shutting down countries, keeping adoptees away from their OBCs and history, continuing to allow trafficking to proliferate and is causing a lot of pain. You are free to deny the pain of others but don't tell us to do the same.
I have to disagree with why countries are shut down for adoption…Placing more than one unrelated child at a time isn't one of them. I would say corruption is the main reason and it has little to do with the families allowed to adopt. We aren't going to agree on anything…You have your OPINIONS… I am sorry about your assessment of ALL children's "best interest" even more sorry that you chose to twist innocent families intentions and reduce the successes of MOST families……You are dishing DIRT of a different kind…BOTH just as "DIRTY"…
Carolyn T – I'm not sure how the list above "projects personal limitations for caring for children on all adoptions… as far as I can tell, it is a factual list of families that have PUBLICLY STATED they adopted 2 or more unrelated kids simultaneously.
Also, hypothetically, imagine you have a kid with severe special needs who you heartbreakingly conclude needs more support than you can provide. You decide to look into an out of home placement — do YOU feel 1 caregiver : 18 high needs kids/adults is a reasonable ratio? If your grandmother had to go to a nursing home, would you pick one with a ratio of 1 caregiver to 18 high-medical needs seniors? Or would you (for lack of a better word) "shop around" until you found, say, a group home with 1 caregiver : 5 special needs kids ratio? Or an apartment-style housing complex with 1 support worker for every 8 seniors?
If you'd "shop around" for your kid or grandmother… why on earth would you think it is OK for a high-needs orphan to be adopted into a 1 caregiver : 18 kids foster home????
Carolyn T/10:51: Not sure where you conclude that I think that the only or main reason for country shutdowns is this issue of two at once. There are so many we have covered on this blog.
Another example: This two at once does drive up disruptions. In particular, Russia is concerned right now about disruptions and child abuse/murder from APs and has halted adoptions in some regions.If you choose to only listen to agencies, they will tell you that this shutdown is just about Torry Hansen returning her child and "propaganda" but if you actually look at what Russia has said over the past year, you will see that it has to do with 400 missing children and numerous lame sentences on AP abusers/murderers, Torry Hansen and more.
I am not twisting anyone's intentions. A commenter posted a bunch of REAL AP blogs which seems to be the only strawman that you want me to respond to. You have yet to address why you disagree with my list in this post.
LOL to your admonishment of me to just keep quiet about the "dirt" Yes I am dirty and you are squeaky clean. LOL. Good for you.Bravo on that strong argument.
Adopting two children at once is definitely harder during the transition. We have adopted one at a time and we have adopted two at a time. For the parents, it can be exhausting. You really have to dedicated all your time and energy to your family and say no to all outside obligations for a time. That being said, for us, it was much better for the kids. They had someone who spoke their language, that they knew from the orphanage, that understood what they were going through. Being adopted to a new family, new culture, new language, etc is TERRIFYING. Having a friend/buddy to go through it with helps a lot. Also, the divided attention can also be a major advantage. Kids who have been raised in an orphanage are not used to the hyper focus and attention that many newly adopted children get (understandably, their parents are loving and excited). This can be very overwhelming, frightening and cause the child to have attachment issues. Adopting two at once allows the child more time to acclimate to their new life and puts less pressure on them to bond NOW. That is why studies show RAD kids tend to do better in large families. Because the parents have more then one to worry about, they are not quite the helicopter parents other newly adoptive parents can be. It is also nice to have a buddy to get all the new shots with, have surgery with, eat pizza for the first time with. Having siblings comes with many, many advantages in and of itself. Being in a large family teaches children responsibility, service, unselfishness, etc. Not all parents are equipped to handle the challenges of adopting two at once, not all parents are equipped to handle special needs, not all parents are equipped to handle large families, but that does not mean that none are. We are currently adopting two unrelated children from the same orphanage who have the same special need. I think there are some serious advantages to this for our kids. Yes, the transition is going to be HARD. We are going to have to make many sacrifices but in the end, when they are fully a part of our family, it will be worth it and they will have someone who they share a history with. Someone to share a life with. We also know that we have the time and resources to make this successful as we have in the past.
Kelly,we are glad when children do ok in high risk situations. As for all kids, until they are adults and tell a parent that the parent did a good job, the perception of the parent is not the full story.
Two or more unrelated children placed at once is high risk and is outside the norm of placing procedures. Even long-time international adoption agencies do not allow unrelated children at the same time. Many countries do not allow it. That is not because people are mean or don't have faith.
A few points that you bring up puzzle me. One is that you say that it is better for kids from orphanages to NOT have undivided attention because that can cause attachment issues. Where in the world does this idea come from? Also please cite what study shows that children with RAD do better in large families.
We are not against large families ; sibling adoptions or adopting one child, then waiting for the child to settle in and bond and then adopting another. This is about two or more unrelated at once. We have seen more than one 4 and 5 unrelated at once in the past year. The outcomes are not good.
Lastly, again, this post was written NOT about the APs needs and capabilities, but the CHILD's best interest and needs that do not fit this practice. It is a gamble at best and is being increasingly promoted, hence the warning in the post.
Perhaps people need to realize exactly why this blog has to exist…
If agencies were forthcoming with known issues, problems, disruptions/disolutions, abuse in homes, murders in homes and were willing to talk about it, find solutions for it then these guys would have no need to spend countless hours showing the dark side of adoption. But the agencies and industry is NOT willing to do its job because the problems aren't getting better they are getting worse.
Until then – listen.
More multiple kid adopting Reece's Rainbow families:
1) Schwertner family adopted 2 SN kids simultaneously in 2011 and is adopting a 3rd less than a year later:
http://schwenzerfamilyupdates.blogspot.com/?m=1
2) Francis family adopted 2 unrelated kids in 2011:
http://www.francisfamilyjourney.blogspot.com/?m=1
3) Smith family adopted 2 unrelated toddlers in 2011:
Savingangel.blogspot.com
4) Logue family adopted 2 unrelated kids in 2011:
http://www.ourchinastarfish.blogspot.com/?m=1
5) Marol famy adopted 2 unrelated kids in 2011:
http://watchwhatfaithcando.blogspot.com/?m=1
6) Ezra and Kelly adopted 2 unrelated kids too:
Ezraandkelly.blogspot.com
7) this family also adopted 2 unrelated kids:
Adoptingourfirst.blogspot.com
8) 2 unrelated kids adopted by the Archer family in 2011:
http://theroaddownhome.blogspot.com/?m=1
9) 2 unrelated kids in 2011 for this fam too:
http://www.faithcanmovethemountains.blogspot.com/?m=1
10) 3 unrelated kids with SN for this family:
Momabearsadoptionblog.blogspot.com
11) 2 unrelated kids for the Ehler family in 2010:
http://www.adoptionsuccess.webs.com/
12) 3 unrelated kids for this family in 2010:
http://www.3foldblessings.blogspot.com/?m=1
13) knapp family adopted 2 unrelated SN kids in 2010:
http://www.godsblessingsofadoption.blogspot.com/?m=1
14) 4 unrelated kids for the Burgeen family in 2010
15) 3 unrelated kids adopted by the Enskat family in 2010 plus 1 more in 2011 (adopted the kid disrupted by the WInkle family mentioned above):
http://www.allabouttheenskats.blogspot.com/
16) 4 unrelated kids for the Fritz family in 2010:
http://r7thheaven.blogspot.com/?m=1
17) 3 unrelated kids for the white family in 2010:
http://whitesadoptionjourney.blogspot.com/?m=1
18) 3 unrelated SN kids for the ADAMS family:
http://www.teasfamilyblog.blogspot.com/?m=1
19) 2 unrelated kids in 2010 for this family:
http://marvelousmagicalmoments.wordpress.com/
20) 2 more unrelated SN kids for the Briwning family in 2010:
http://www.anextraleaf.blogspot.com/?m=1
21) 2 unrelated kids adopted by the Parkwr family in 2011, they're in the process of adopting a 3rd unrelated kid this year:
http://www.teamparkerblog.blogspot.com/?m=1
22) 2 unrelated SN kids for this fam too in 2010:
http://www.samandjonadopt.blogspot.com/?m=1
23) 3 unrelated kids for the Hannon family in 2019 too:
http://www.the-scenic-route-momto6kids.blogspot.com/?m=1
24) 3 unrelated SN kiddos for the Lutz family in 2010:
http://laura-livingthedream.blogspot.com/?m=1
25) 2 unrelated SN kids for the Westbrooks in 2010:
http://www.bringinghomeourgirls.blogspot.com/
26) 2 more unrelated SN kids for this family:
http://www.snadoption.blogspot.com/?m=1
27) 2 unrelated SN kids for this famy:
http://www.neveradullmoment-andrea.blogspot.com/?m=1
28) 4 unrelated kids fir this family too — all with SN to boot:
http://greatfullyforeverchanged.blogspot.com/?m=1
And are the children in better circumstances if left to institutional care or shipped to a facility where no interaction takes place and where, if they survive in these facilities with their lives will be released to a life of crime, suicide, prostitution etc. Is this in the best interest of the child?
Anonymous May 1: I don't understand your strawman question. Why do you think that there are only 2 options for these children: Adopting them along with another unrelated special needs child OR crime, suicide, prostitution? Do you really think that those are the ONLY 2 options? How about adopting only ONE special needs child into a *prepared* family at a time? That IS the way it used to be before desperation set in for adoption agencies who are either not Hague accredited or choose to place the majority of their IA kids FROM NON-Hague participating countries (71% of FY2011 to be exact came from NONHague countries).Again, disruptions in this population are on the rise.
In my opinion, adopting two unrelated children at the same time is not the best situation for the adopted children. We have 3 biological children and two that we adopted internationally at the same time. We have been home with them for a little over 2 years, and the transition has been horribly difficult. I know that if we just had one to focus on, the transition would have been much smoother. Having 2 children with different backgrounds and needs join a family at the same time has presented countless issues. It has taken so much longer to attach with them because we have never been able to solely focus on their individual needs. They were both so needy at the same time (without any background or attachment to each other) that they saw each other as a threat, which made everything harder, and made them continue to feel very insecure in their position in the family.
We adopted independently from a non-Hague country, so we didn’t have much guidance on this. The administrator of the orphanage we adopted from only allows adoptions of 2 children at once, and she insisted it is better for the children because they have someone else who looks like them. At the time, that seemed to make sense, but I now see it as ridiculous. If that is such an important thing, then you can always adopt a second time from the same race as the first.
We prayed and prayed about our decision and really felt like it was what we were supposed to do, so I don’t really know what to do with that, but I think it is safe to say that as a blanket rule adopting two unrelated children at the same time is not a good idea and not in the best interest of the child or adoptive parents.
Jessica, thanks for sharing your story with everyone. I hope things are working out better for you now. I had never heard of an orphanage that demanded adopting two at once.
We are not trying to be mean when we suggest avoiding this, but we have known too many people that have had huge struggles, disruptions and divorces due to adopting two unrelated children at once.Many agencies will not allow this anymore. With the majority of international adoptions still taking place in nonHague countries, we still feel that this is an important issue that continues to still be discussed.
There is also a social work theory called “artificial twinning” that suggests that adopting unrelated kids so close together in age is not beneficial from a child development standpoint.
Adoption is a court-created family relationship. The adopted child is already got so many strikes against him or her due to the grief issues of losing their family of origin, their culture and compounding that, a child with special needs requires more one-on-one nurturing.
Less focus on “gotcha day”. More focus on well-accept child psychology and social work ethics.
I can’t help but ask for resources to back up your statements. I think it would be most helpful to deem you as a reliable source. Where does it say adopting multiple children increases the chances of disruption or death? When I googled disruption statistics, most often the studies presented a rate of 25%, and unless I am mistaken, those were domestic adoptions of a single child. I have followed Reece’s Rainbow for years (not here debating their merit, only asking for facts to back these comments up) and I struggle to name more than 5 or six disruptions. Out of a thousand adoptions now. It seems the disruption rate among families working with Reece’s rainbow is substantially lower than average. Thoughts?
Well, off the top of my head,I can think of Nathaniel Craver-He was killed His Sister was not. Hana Williams- she was killed Her Nonbiological Brotherwas not. Max Shatto-he was killed. His biological brother Kirill was not. Benjamin Yhip died- his brother was not.There are *definitely* more. Yes,you are right about the25%-they are Not from foreign adoptions!Why don’t they measure those? I can think of more than 6 disruptions from Reeces. They are have placed over one thousand ????Yikes!
Why don’t you pick something out of my post and debate it?
“1. Each child must give up on much-needed bonding time so the other child can also bond, leaving both bereft.
2. Each child is expected to automatically bond to the other one in addition to all family members, which can be impossible if their personalities/likes/ages are dissimilar, causing intense problems and resentment.
3. Each child will not be given adequate one-on-one time to learn English.
4. Each child’s unique medical needs might not be properly addressed, especially if one child’s needs are more severe than the other’s needs.
5. There is a greater need for APs to spread the finances, which does not guarantee any issues but certainly increases the risks .
6. If one or both of the children are special needs, having multiple adoptions at once is rarely in best interest of child, particularly as the agencies often choose the ONLY AP willing to take on these kids. This means that the kids needing the most experienced parents often are matched with parents with the least experience and/or excessive naiveté. Compounding the problem is when agencies downplay these special needs in order to get the kids adopted and rake in their fees.
7. The costs are much higher. In years past, there often were cost reductions for a special need child and/or two at once, but the new trend is to increase the cost (see recent Reece’s Rainbow cases and Kyrgyzstan cases.) It is all related to fees for the process and the agency and has nothing to do with care of the child. Most children are cared for in poor circumstances yet PAPs rarely question the mismatch of high fee and low quality of orphan care.”
That’s what I thought. You can’t debate speculation. Spreading money to thin, not learning English fast enough, and assuming children aren’t getting enough attention or medical care are not sound reasons. You can’t compare a single child adoption to any multiple child adoption because you will never be able to adequately predict how each individual child will react with or without another child present.
I will not stoop to your level and include children who were injured in true accidents or died after a necessary medical procedure.
So write your lists, but the Reece’s rainbow adoptions/disruptions will NOT even come close to your statistics of disruptions where children were adopted in the manner of which you see fit, ie a single child in a small family with or without medical conditions, domestically without a language or culture.
I am not even a Reece’s rainbow supporter, but rather I find it almost comical you slander their name to back your theories! Theories that are BLOWN out of the water when you look at the success of their families.
Let’s speculate for another second, shall we, since it’s your favorite activity, that you have multiple personalities and aliases, spend ALL of your time online (instead of with your own children, if God forbid, you have any), hunting thousands of blogs to leave *cut and pasted* responses of hate to try to scare families. When faced with questions that could sink your efforts, you resort to spinning in circles and screaming the same three sad situations over and over. Yes, there does need to be lots of reform in adoptions. However, there will never be perfection because it does not exist in ANY real life scenario. Most are just trying to do the absolute best they can with what they’ve got. Maybe you should call for reform on a more appropriate level with solid facts. Skip the drama.
Well, actually you CAN debate “speculation”.Why does Holt not approve of adopting more than one unrelated person at a time? And any other reputable organization?
“You can’t compare a single child adoption to any multiple child adoption because you will never be able to adequately predict how each individual child will react with or without another child present.” Yes you won’t be able to predict it.That’s my point.
“I will not stoop to your level and include children who were injured in true accidents or died after a necessary medical procedure” Say WHAT!!! How DARE you say that those children died after a necessary medical procedure and were injured in “true” accidents!Read the stories!
LOL. I have multiple aliases! Riiighht!LOL. I don’t spend all of my time online either. LOL!
” When faced with questions that could sink your efforts, you resort to spinning in circles and screaming the same three sad situations over and over. ” WTF does that mean?
We’re not asking for perfection-just that people are APPROPRIATELY trained. Skip the drama?Whatever.
Curiousgeorgine,
Re: “…you will never be able to adequately predict how each individual child will react with or without another child present…”
And that’s precisely WHY adoptions of multiple unrelated children shouldn’t be done. You don’t know until you get them home what issues and needs internationally adopted kids will have, so you can’t know if every one of them will be able to handle the additional stresses of the situation or not. Lisa Qualls when writing of her troubled daughter Dimples stated that she was a different person when she had her APs sole attention, without the competition from her adopted siblings.
Obviously APs can’t surrender some of their existing children in order to give a new adoptee more attention. They CAN maximize the chances of successful adoption by adopting one at a time (except for sibling groups), waiting until the last previously adopted child has bonded securely before pursuing another adoption, and not adopting out of birth order.
The bottom line is, any child capable of bonding during a multi-child adoption can also bond during a single child adoption without difficulty. But many children who CAN’T handle the multi-child setup might bond just fine if adopted singly. For that reason alone, all adoptions should be one-at-a-time unless it’s siblings being placed.
Google does contain links and citations to scholarly works. Textbooks and clinical studies even. Sometimes to learn, it helps to go further than the first page of search results on Google and crack a book housed in a university library.
This is a blog. If you really want to know more about social science methodology, take a course.
The RR adoptions that ended badly that I can think of include:
Disrupt
Emmett Bedford
Yuri Winkle
Madalie Middleton
Kellsey Garcia
2 kids adopted by the Gardners
Laina and Asher Fitch
2 Estonian boys adopted by Andrea Roberts herself
2 boys adopted by the Earlywine family
Dead
Nicolai Emelyentsev
Gennie Davis
Henry Dobrovits
Chrissie Patterson
Exiled from family home (banished to crisis respite indefinitely)
Victor Reilly
Evelyn Burman
Permanently maimed
Selah Clanton (ate/moved/breathed just fine in a Ukrainian mental institution… comatose and on a vent within months of getting to the US with her forever family)
I know there are tons of others — hopefully folks will chime in!
Madalie Middleton was not disrupted. Do not spread lies.
Her amommy Sylvia Middleton alluded to a disruption on her now-private Facebook page (that has oodles of photos of little Ava and Gabby — the cuties with down syndrome she adopted — but no pics of little Madalie since around Sept/Oct 2013).
It’s extremely irresponsible to say such things without any proof. She has posted pictures of Madalie and talked about her on her actual Facebook page within the last week.
Rally,
Um, Henry Dobrovits wasn’t a two-at-once adoption. And his death seems to have been the tragic consequence of extremely risky but medically-indicated surgery, not abuse or neglect.
It was probably a bad idea for his grieving adoptive parents to adopt so soon after his death, but the three kids they adopted were a sibling group.
The ‘Homeschooling’s Invisible Children’ site officially tracks abuse of homeschooled kids, but adoption has been noted as a factor in such abuse because “…A disproportionate number of cases of severe abuse and neglect involve children who are adopted or have special needs. Some of the cases involve both, as well-meaning couples adopt large numbers of special needs children and then find themselves unable to properly care for all of them…”
http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/themes-in-abuse/adoption-special-needs/
http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/category/adoption/
They’re not online anymore, but the Shupp family ditched Freddie. He was adopted at 15, into a family with several younger kids. Lyndi Shupp was very active in RR at the time.
I don’t know if they legally disrupted or just sent him to permanent respite. Back in the day there was just a post that said he was permanently no longer living with their family, it was a very difficult decision and to please respect that. Lyndi must have deleted her blog at some point after that.
I meant to ask – Should there be an asterisk or something by Henry Dobrovits and Chrissie Patterson? Both families are doing completely unethical things now, and using the memory of their dead kids to get support – but they both died from medical disorders that were being treated appropriately by doctors. I’ve never seen any implication from anyone that either family caused the deaths, but it’s not easy to tell that from reading through this list.
I can’t stand the Dobrovits or the Pattersons, but the deaths of their two kids don’t rank in the same realm of negligence or homicide as poor Gennie and Nicolai.