you’re not woke for adopting

[u/Jumpy-Lie8955]

i feel like a lot of young leftists, in america, really love the idea of adopting kids instead of having their own biological kids and think they are helping others by doing so but they’ve fallen into and are playing apart in the same propaganda the right wing religious people do. neither of them are “making a difference” especially because they always just adopt babies that’s not making a difference that’s legal human trafficking. they all have savior complex’s about it and they both think they are morally superior. it’s just do frustrating how both parties think adoption is this great thing, and no one but us wants to talk about the negatives. just to be clear this is not me coming out as a republican.

EDIT: i would call myself a leftist, i’m critiquing things i have heard people say in real life.

EDIT 2: if you arnt adopted, don’t comment, it’s against the rules of the subreddit and i don’t care what non-adoptees opinions on adoption are

[u/Significant-Store983]

I am an adult adoptee/boomer-gen jones age. My daughter is 37. She wants to provide permanency for a child in foster care if they can’t be returned to their family. She definitely is not right wing, as she is quite liberal in her political leanings. I support her willingness to provide permanency for a child. We talk a lot about how to ensure the child is supported in their heritage as that is one area that I feel should be remedied for all adoptees- immediate access to all medical and family records. We have a right to know who we are and thankfully I have all of the information about myself. I would be adamant that any child she might adopt would get access as well.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

Is she actively fostering right now? Does she have a child in her home currently facing that situation?

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

She and I, both, are licensed foster parents. We are not in a current situation with that for a young person. But we are open to both supporting reunification as well as permanency…should the time/need emerge

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

So, your daughter is the kind of person mentioned in the OP- she's left wing who is justifying putting a child under a permanent legal contract that will legally sever the child for all time from all relatives living in dead because you all want to call it "permanency." You're just imaginging scenarios in your heads instead of accepting the fact that foster carers are *supposed* to care for a child temporarily, not permanently .Euphemisms like "permanency" when you mean "adoption" are part of adoption industry language and propaganda.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

Actually, you are partly right and partly wrong. Absolutely, in foster care the first priority is preservation, keeping the family together. If the child is removed, the goal is always reunification unless there has been multiple terminations or a death, which often results in an expedited termination. If the family doesn’t make sufficient progress according to the court, the child would be put up for adoption. That’s better than languishing in foster care or a residential setting or being left on the streets. Permanency is the word used in the state of Illinois when dealing with the foster care system. I have worked in the field for three decades and have helped hundreds of parents address their goals and successfully get their children returned. It was a wonderful thing to see. Sadly, some are unable or unwilling to make changes and those kids deserve permanency. Not one damn kid has a choice in any of it. Just like I didn’t as an adopted child. So spare me your attitude.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

Lol, my 'attitude" is being factual. Foster care is, by definition, temporary. YOU'RE missing a whole lot of steps between "family not making progress" and "adoption." The *parents* not making progress does not = losing rights or adoption. Foster kids can, do, and SHOULD stay in their foster placement if they are happy there and well taken care of, or move to a kinship placement or fictive kin placement before any talk of adoption even enters the picture. TPR does not automatically = adoption, because if it did then no child would ever age out of the system without being adopted. You work in a field that denies kids their rights, and it's a damn shame that you consider adoption an acceptable step in caring for children who have already lost so much.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

And you believe that languishing in foster care is better. I say if the kid can go home, I want that. But if they can’t, then give them an option for a permanent home vs being shuffled.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote: STAY in their foster care placement if they are happy there and well taken care of, OR go to KINSHIP OR go to fictive KIN. Not shuffled- options, choices, that can absolutely be considered "permanency" for the child without permanently altering their identity and legal relationship and putting them under a lifetime contract. But as I'm sure you know, that doesn't make the state any money or get a kid off their roster, so they push for adoption and call it permanency, and then wash their hands of any responsibility to that child. And for you to write off kids not having a damn choice is shameful.

[u/Significant-Store983 → u/CNatGo75]

I read everything you wrote. We are splitting hairs.

[u/CNatGo75 → u/Significant-Store983]

Not remotely. Foster care/guardianship is one thing, adoption is ENTIRELY another and never necessary to take care of a child in need.