Friday, August 7, 2009

Disruption

Osolomama has a great post about adoption disruption, now given the nicey-nice name of "re-homing." Here's a snippet, but be sure to go to her blog to read the whole thing:

There is a lot of talk, when the subject comes up, about not judging. I get that. People deserve help for their kids and themselves. No, I can’t imagine walking in some of their shoes. But the judging is not all about them or individual caseworkers doing their best; it’s a reaction to the idea that you can take this on, walk away when it gets tough, and then bond with other people publicly over your “badly bungled adoptions” boo-hoo because the system is usually there for you and might even hand you another child. Meanwhile, it sure feels like the kids are taking a back seat to everyone else’s needs.

It’s interesting. Nobody even gets glory points for sticking by their handicapped kids or children with autism, including the hard-to-raise kids, the ones they call the wrecking ball disguised as a boy. Most definitely, nobody gets a lollipop for divorcing them. The fact that it’s allowed to happen in adoption says something the industry and about attitudes to adopted kids that we may be reluctant to acknowledge.

8 comments:

Wendy said...

Thanks for the link Malinda, anything to make them feel better about their decision. I guess with too much negative attention on "distruption", they felt they needed yet another nice term "re-homing". Geez.

Anonymous said...

Disruption? Re-homing? OMFG. IT'S ABANDONMENT. These politically correct terms sanitizing what is truly child abuse is SICK.

osolomama said...

Thanks for the shout-out, Malinda. Important topic. I still do wonder if I am judging, and yet I feel this is something we cannot normalize as a society.

Wendy said...

I agree, the more we make it "easier" as far as terms and acceptance as something that just could not be helped, the more the continuation of adoption being second best or children being lucky to be adopted will continue.

malinda said...

I'm also into "not judging," since I haven't lived thier experience, but the key is parental RESPONSIBILITY. When you become a parent, however that happens, you are responsible for the well-being of your child. And it seems to me that when there is "re-homing," there's a confession that the child CAN be parented in some home. So it becomes the parents' RESPONSIBILITY to change themselves and their home into the one that can parent this child. "Re-homing" is just an excuse not to change.

About the only thing I can think of that would make a disruption ok is if there are other children in the home who are in danger -- because then you have RESPONSIBILITY there, too. And that would be a horrible "Sophie's Choice" kind of situation.

We're going to be hearing more about disruptions, I think. For one thing, rates of disruptions are going up. And for another, we're so busy "not judging" that we have more disrupting a-parents willing to talk about thier disruptions.

Anonymous said...

What really kills me is disruptions of older children. adoptionblogs.com had a blogger a few years ago writing about her experiences with a child that she had taken into her home as a result of disruption. I think this child was around 8 or 9 yrs old. Her adoptive mother refused to even see her when she left, the father took her to meet with the new family and basically dumped her there. The new family wasn't prepared at that time to actually take her home with them, but what else could they do? But I've thought about this often - how can a child recover from this type of treatment from the people that she has been taught she must trust to take care of her needs?

Anne said...

As a former child protective services caseworker, I can tell you that it’s not just adoptive placements which disrupt. During the time I worked for CPS, there were a significant number of cases in which a biological parent decided to “dump” their child on the system. I can only speak for the county in which I worked, but the parents were never held accountable by paying financial support, having ongoing contact, or participating in therapy. They never even had to appear in court. There are damaged, troubled children in the world, both adopted and non-adopted, who get that way for a variety of reasons. I’m not defending people who abandon their children, but one of the big problems is that the resources to help with the situation are too scarce and too expensive for most families, biological or otherwise.

Diane said...

Malinda- I disagree that an abusive child is the exception. When we become parents we become responsible for keeping our children safe- all of them- including a child who might be physically, sexually or emotionally abusive. It is about keeping them safe from themselves and it is doable. It might mean respite care or hospitalization or in home caretakers but violence is not always an acceptable justification for disruption- especially in young children. Is it exhausting and resource draining? Absolutely but as a parent it is our responsibility.
This topic is heavy on my heart today after hearing about yet another disruption of a 3 year old China adoptee. Breaks me up. With that young of a child it is completely possible to keep everyone in the home safe.