Wow. I'm all for validating other parents so that they feel accepted AS parents. I know that many adoptive families have had issues where others don't want to accept them as having formed their familiy in a legitimate way.

But this smacks of putting down one group to raise another up. It smacks of high school popularity contest rhetoric.

A lot of planning went into our son. As does a lot of freaking money as well as a lot of time spent reading and seeking out social opportunities. I postponed my career, which was headed in successful directions!, for this child without so much as a tear.

Shoot. I'm offended. I "really wanted" my child as well. So sad that we're reduced to x is better than y mentality on even the simplest things such as who is more equipped for parenthood.

Sigh.

Good points Jenna... but I had to pass on a somewhat positive adoption article, I can see your point about it seeming like a contest and pitting a group against another...


they fail to mention in this study if adoptive parents spend more time & money on their children because of attachment related issues.

Interesting indeed

sorry you were offended.

My friend called me last night after hearing about this study on tv. I have to say, as an adoptive parent, I'm somewhat, not so much offended, but bothered by it. There are just too many variables to it.

Angela :-)

Ah, my boss played Rush Limbaugh's take on this new study - I cannot wait to blog about it. Rush is not a favorite of mine - but his take on this study was quite interesting. I rarely agree with him, but his logic on this, I could not fault.

Guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder - can't think why a birth parent would think this article was a positive one.

Interesting study, although I think it is flawed. Obviously you could take all bio families and divide them up into those who spend tons of time and money on their children and those who do not. I believe that "adoptive" parents are a subset of the group of "parents" who spend more time and money on their children. These same "adoptive" parents most likely would have spent lots of time and money on their children if they had had bio children and had not adopted also.

Lauri; It's not YOUR fault. :) Just the fault of the study in general. :)

I find this interesting in the way that perhaps some adoptive parents, by virtue of having waited longer, or being older, or more finacially stable than biological families (who generally are younger) might put more resources toward parenting. Mabe because they have had more time to accumulate more resources? I doubt that speaks about birthfamilies being poorer in parenting quality, or less interested like the article quote suggests.
As for me, ya I was older, but most my resources (after the thousands spent on infertility) went into actually adopting my kids, so we do not have that excess left to "spoil them rotten" if you will. Once I left my career of eight years to stay home and give them what I could give (more time) the money factor went way out the window.
Funny, I know they felt this was supportive in some way of adoptive parenting, but made me miffed because I must fall into the same catagory with those families who they claim are not giving as much (as those who are, and are doing so much better).
You give what ya got, and I give everything I have.

As a single adoptive parent, I do not exist. At least that is what the study implies. Gosh, maybe I really am an unreal parent!

They have some interesting conclusions and some odd ones (adoption is not real parenthood). I had no idea I was compensating.

It sounds that the thing that has people wraped around the axle is really the 'best intrest of the child' argument. If adoptive parents really do put more of their time and effort into parenting, then children should be in that type of family setting if there is a close call to be made by a judge.

I think adoptive parents do try very hard, I also know a lot of birthfamilies that do also. One study doesn't make it so.

The thing that bothers me, why would any parent, birth or adoptive, not want the child's best intrest to prevail in a challenging custody situation? Do birth parents really want their intrests no matter what? When should the child's intrests finally matter?

Typo, missing sentence. Third Paragraph after 'made by a judge'.

Please add, 'If the birthfamily is the better fit, then the children should be placed there'. I don't see where either family should have intreats that trump the child's.

Thanks for the feedback.....

Like Jenna said parenting is hard enough and we all love our kids and are doing our best..


I initally did not pick up on the pitting one group against another vibe of the article...I did not see the other side of the coin. I quickly was passing on a link that in light of some adoption press I felt was positive, but I did feel that the article made alot of assumptions and left out alot of variables.

My reactions were simliar to others regarding that maybe we spend more money because we spent more to have our kids. But, then I remember that the vast majority of adoptions in the US are neither international nor domestic infant/agency adoptions. That leaves foster care, relative, and stepparent (the latter was not included in the study since neither parent could be bio). None of these take anywhere near the amount of money we spent on a domestic infant adoption. Just another thought.

I saw the article in the morning paper. It was nice to see an article that placed adoption and adoptive parents in a positive light!
AnnMarie