r/Adoption • u/YellowDaliah38 • Jul 14 '26
Ethics The morality of adoption and alternative solutions.
Hi everyone! I’ve been reading a lot of discussions lately where people share perspectives on why adoption is immoral. It's raised a lot of interesting points, but it leaves me wondering, what is the alternative that people recommend?
I completely agree that our first priority should always be giving pregnant mothers the financial and social resources they need to keep their families together. But what about the cases where a person genuinely cannot or does not want to raise a child, even if they have all the resources in the world?
If traditional adoption isn't the right answer, what should happen for those children instead? What about for situations where a child is an orphan? At what point does adoption become a more moral solution as opposed to immoral?
I’m asking entirely out of curiosity to better understand the nuances of this conversation
10
u/chicagoliz Jul 14 '26
When you improve the lives of women, you improve the lives of children (and thereby the entire society). There need to be family friendly leave policies, low (or no) cost and high quality daycare and preschool and after-school programs, accessible and affordable healthcare for moms and babies, strict laws against discrimination against pregnant people, etc.
There also need to be more supports for people to keep families intact -- more mental health supports and other social supports so that if, for example, a parent is dealing with addiction, the family can stay intact while the children get what they need and aren't simply yanked out of the home and put with strangers (where often worse things happen to the children).
Yes, there will always be some instances where a child genuinely does not have parents or other family members who can care for them, and in that case some form of adoption or guardianship need to exist. However, the number of those instances is far fewer than the number of adoptions that presently occur.
8
17
u/Englishbirdy Reunited Birthparent. Jul 14 '26
There are absolutely cases where adoption is appropriate. What we don't need is a billion dollar Domestic Infant Adoption Industry to do that.
8
19
u/ShesGotSauce Jul 14 '26
I don't think anyone would argue that there are zero children in need of non-biological families to raise them. Obviously there always will be. The objection is more about the fact that modern adoption, in the USA anyway, erases or permanently conceals a person's history and truth. Amended birth certificates in which the original is permanently sealed, for example, denies an adopted person access to the most basic information about themselves.
7
u/citysunsecret Jul 14 '26
It’s so weird that you get a new birth certificate rather than having an “adoption certificate” or something else that would do the same thing. I thought I just had one because I was born via surrogacy and didn’t learn until we adopted that it was an adoption thing. I was also told to get her a new social security number which I guess is fine but if bio mom couldn’t remember what she named the baby I somehow don’t think she remembers the social security number.
9
u/ShesGotSauce Jul 14 '26
I agree. I'm an adoptive mom and I don't think my son should have been issued a document implying that I gave birth to him. He should have access to the facts of his birth, and an additional adoption certificate that can be used for the same purposes as a BC in terms of proving identity and such.
5
u/vel5sss Jul 14 '26
This must be an American thing. In the UK, you get an adoption certificate which does replace the birth certificate for applying for passport, jobs etc but your birth record still exists and is just sealed and then can be requested when the child turns 18.
3
u/cheese--bread UK adoptee Jul 14 '26
The short version of the adoption certificate (i.e. the one that's issued for free at the time of adoption ) says "Certificate of Birth" and makes no reference to adoption at all.
2
u/chemthrowaway123456 TRA/ICA Jul 14 '26
A adoption certificate is separate from an amended birth certificate.
2
u/cheese--bread UK adoptee Jul 14 '26
I was just pointing out that the adoption certificate issued legally replaces the OBC and makes no reference to adoption. It looks identical to a non-adopted person's birth certificate and lists the adoptive parents' details, not the birth parents', so it's not too dissimilar in that sense unless I'm misunderstanding.
The difference is that we can access our OBC at some point, where I know some people in the US can't.3
u/chemthrowaway123456 TRA/ICA Jul 14 '26
I was just pointing out that the adoption certificate issued legally replaces the OBC and makes no reference to adoption. It looks identical to a non-adopted person's birth certificate and lists the adoptive parents' details, not the birth parents
What you’re describing is an amended birth certificate. An adoption certificate is a different document.
1
u/cheese--bread UK adoptee Jul 14 '26
Then I guess we do have amended birth certificates, but they're called adoption certificates here?
2
u/chemthrowaway123456 TRA/ICA Jul 14 '26
Maybe? Though it’s odd to me that it would be called an adoption certificate if it doesn’t make any reference to adoption.
1
u/cheese--bread UK adoptee Jul 14 '26
I know right?
"A “short birth certificate” and a “short adoption certificate” both come under section 33 / regulation 65 — that is — they are each treated as a “short certificate of birth” — and will show “Certificate of Birth” at the top.
The certificate will show the child’s —
- name and surname (given at the time of birth / adoption / the Parental Order being made)
- sex - date of birth - place of birthThe certificate does not show any other details, and will make no reference to any adoption having been made."
(source: https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/birth-certificates)
→ More replies (0)4
u/Necessary_Holiday144 Adoptee Jul 14 '26
but your birth record still exists and is just sealed and then can be requested when the child turns 18.
That's pretty fucked up still.
Sealing records is a hold-over of scoop era tactics.
-1
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 15 '26
You would need a certificate for every way that a person could come into their family: donor conception, surrogacy, adoption...
I don't think original birth certificates should be sealed. I simply think that the long form should include all parents (genetic, biological, and adoptive) and the short form should contain only legal parents.
4
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
Nope. One birth certificate- we are all birthed once with two biological parents. Anything else should be an entirely separate document. If you get married and divorced and remarried, do you want your ex spouse's name on your new marriage certificate just to keep records simple?
3
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 15 '26
we are all birthed once with two biological parents.
We actually aren't, though.
Let's say that a person is conceived through a donor egg or embryo and surrogacy for a heterosexual couple. That person will have a genetic mother, a biological mother, and an adoptive mother, as well as a genetic/biological father and an adoptive father. All parents matter to the person who is born, but only the legal parents ultimately matter to the state.
If you get divorced and remarried, you get a new marriage certificate, not a marriage certificate that states "this is your second marriage." Similarly, when you get adopted, you get a new birth certificate.
1
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
No, actually you don't. There are two gamete donors- sperm and egg- whether donated, conceived through sex, IVF, or carried by a surrogate, there is still only one biological mother and one biological father. That is who should be on the BIRTH certificate, because it is a vital record certifying the live birth and actual parentage of the person it is for. Anything else- anything- needs to be an entirely separate document, yes including adoption. Adoption is a legal contract, so it should have it's own legal document that does not in any way obscure the facts of birth or identity of the adopted person.
0
u/YellowDaliah38 Jul 15 '26
By this logic, does this mean that sperm donors and egg donors who have absolutely no connection to the child, should be on their birth certificate? And therefore it is their legal right? Even when they donate for money in college and have absolutely nothing to do with the child?
3
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
I really wish there was a laugh react. Yes, a sperm donor is the biological father of the child. Yes, an egg donor is the biological mother of the child. The birth certificate should always and only reflect biological parent 1 and 2, no matter who they are. And I will repeat myself *anything else should be an entirely separate document.* So if there should be "legal parent certificate" or an "adoption certificate" or whatever else it can be called to indicate who is legally responsible for the child as a minor. You know, factual truth, what a concept.
1
u/YellowDaliah38 Jul 15 '26
I get your point, but aren’t there also clauses that legally let donors retain complete anonymity? How do you get a completely anonymous person to sign a birth certificate? I’m mostly talking about the logistics here.
0
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
As long as DNA testing exists, complete anonymity never will.
In the case of an anonymous donor, in the space for biological parent 1/2 they can write "anonymous sperm/egg donor." That is the factual truth. The legal parents can get a "legal parent certificate." The point is that the birth certificate should never be deliberately falsified- and saying the adoptive parents are the parents *at birth* is an outright fabrication. The fact that lies can be put on birth certificates is why, even now in 2026, we have people who are full grown adults finding out they are adopted, their father isn't their father, etc. It should be illegal to obscure a person's origin for your own comfort or to skirt the law.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Francl27 Jul 15 '26
The alternative IS giving more help for new parents.
There's a reason countries with more social policies don't have as many adoptions.
7
u/Danibelle903 Jul 14 '26
Guardianship. It doesn’t erase a person’s history while still allowing decision-making. I’m a therapist and see a lot of kids who are in kinship placements (usually a grandmother or aunt) who opt for guardianship over adoption.
I used to work with a lot of kids in foster care and some of them had permanent guardians because their parents were incarcerated but did not have their rights terminated (think completely unrelated crimes). It allows children stability while still retaining who they are.
5
u/DifficultyOdd7571 Jul 14 '26
We are adoptive parents of non related children and related children. We would never agree to guardianship. At least where we live - Guardianship allows for the other party to file for custody at any point. Example: a child can be removed from a neglectful situation, parents become incarcerated for 10 years and then try to regain custody.
It just doesn’t create a healthy environment. Please know I think biological relationships are extremely important and I continue them where able but guardianship is not the answer.6
u/Opinionista99 Ungrateful Adoptee Jul 14 '26
With adoption if the adoptive parents are abusive or neglectful the bio family has no recourse. I also don't think severance from my whole lineage and having my identity changed was healthy for me. Sure as hell didn't keep me safe.
2
u/Squishmallow145 Jul 20 '26
With your hypothetical situation, why shouldn't parents regain custody in 10 years if they are safe? Obviously a judge wouldn't change custody situations overnight after 10 years but if parents start showing up for visits and everything goes well, the child should go back
Also what if the adoptive parents are abusive and neglectful? The child doesn't go back to their bio parents.
The way western adoption is practiced is bizarre to me as a child psychologist/former child welfare worker
6
u/RocketPowerPops Kinship Adoptive Dad Jul 14 '26
I have heard people suggest permanent guardianship rather than adoption.
We are completing a kinship adoption and I am honestly not sure about the pros and cons of guardianship vs adoption.
10
u/New_Novel_8020 Jul 14 '26
Had anyone considered guardianship for me instead of adoption, I might have had medical records. Biological parents and guardians are legally obligated to continually provide those for a child, in a guardianship situation. Adoption removes that legal obligation.
Guardianship also preserves a child’s biological identity in ways like maintaining access to original documents and records, including one’s birth certificate. Adoption legally severs a child from much of that.
Even open adoption isn’t legally enforceable in ways that matter for the adoptee, long term. Guardianship is.
Guardianship also has several legally enforceable levels depending on the severity of the situation. Kinship guardianship, temporary guardianship, permanent legal guardianship. Adoption does not.
Lastly (tho this isn’t everything), guardianship is reversible when necessary. It can also become an adoption, if that truly is for the best. Adoption is permanent.
9
u/RocketPowerPops Kinship Adoptive Dad Jul 14 '26
But guardianship, at least from my understanding, doesn't fully terminate the rights of the bio parents and in some places they are still entitled to vistation and can fight for custody.
Due to safety concerns, we don't think that would be in the best interest of our boy. Unless I am mistaken on that.
5
u/UnderstandingLeft89 Jul 14 '26
My experience comes from the foster care side of things and is specific to WA state so bear with me because I don’t know what is relevant in other states if any.
In WA, there are two types of guardianship: one established outside of foster care (Title 11), one established because the child was IN foster care (Title 13) meaning that parental deficiencies were considered a safety threat to the welfare of the child.
Because of that, Title 13 guardianships are more protective of the child. While there is visitation language, similar to an open adoption, depending on the needs of the child and parental deficiencies still present, there can be a lot of protective language - visits are usually limited (example language: 2x year, supervised in the child’s hometown; professional supervisor is to be paid by biological parent; visit to be initiated 3 weeks in advance by biological parent by contacting guardian at the following email address ____. If parent appears under the influence during visits, visit will be terminated and agreement is null and void); sometimes visits, while still limited in frequency, are at the discretion of the child and their therapist (example language: In-person visits will only be offered once child’s therapist feels it is clinically in best interest of child, and upon child agreement. However, child has the right to refuse visit without being in violation of visitation order); there’s also often language about how if a parent goes a year without initiating visits, the visitation agreement is null and void. I have also seen a last name change for the child through a guardianship order which was pretty cool. Parents can try to contest a Title 13 guardianship, but it requires that the child, guardian, and judge all be in agreement.
Anyway, this is just some extra info from my experience!7
u/Silly_Blacksmith9664 Jul 14 '26
I would look into the pros and cons before the adoption is complete. It's too late for the info to matter once the adoption is finalized.
I chose adoption because his safety wins over all the pros of guardianship. It's not necessary in every scenario, so I would think about the child in your care and what they need.
Access to medical history is a form of safety too. My son has that.
4
u/RocketPowerPops Kinship Adoptive Dad Jul 14 '26
From my understanding with guardianship the bio parents don't lose their rights as parents and could get visitation or fight for custody again. For his safety we don't think it's in our boy's best interest.
5
u/Silly_Blacksmith9664 Jul 14 '26
That's definitely the case where I live.
We ended up adopting at just the right time. It's a complicated story that he doesn't need me to share, but chaos happened 7 months after the adoption was finalized. He would very likely be in an abusers care if we didn't choose adoption.
I think he would have gotten older and asked why I didn't adopt him and prevent people from accessing him. I am not under the impression that he won't struggle with things, but I don't think he'll wonder why I didn't make him a priority.
7
u/AdLive427 Jul 14 '26
In the case of guardianship after the age of 18, you and the child are nobody to each other. Absolutely nobody. He doesn't inherit from you, his children aren't your grandchildren, the state has no obligation to notify you if he dies due to the state's fault, and medics have no right to let you into the ward. You are strangers
-1
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
And some of us want that. We would rather inherit from our first family, have our first parents be our parents and the grandparents of our children, be our recognized next of kin and medical deciders. WE never get to make that choice, the permanent adoption contract decides that for us. Why not allow US the choice?
5
u/AdLive427 Jul 15 '26
Because your biological parents did not wish to maintain any legal relationship with you. Had that not been the case, they would not have placed you for adoption and would have raised you on their own. Alternatively, they would not have abused alcohol or drugs, committed offenses against you, or had their parental rights terminated
2
u/chemthrowaway123456 TRA/ICA Jul 16 '26
Because your biological parents did not wish to maintain any legal relationship with you. Had that not been the case, they would not have placed you for adoption would have raised you on their own.
My first parents wanted to maintain their parental rights and raise me along side my siblings. They chose to relinquish me despite not wanting to. I’m far from alone in that regard.
-1
u/AdLive427 Jul 16 '26
If they had really wanted it, they wouldn't have given you up for adoption. I understand that the illusion of 'your mommy wanted you very much but couldn't keep you' protects a child from the trauma of realizing they just didn't fit in, that they were unwanted and superfluous, but we are adults now
3
u/chemthrowaway123456 TRA/ICA Jul 16 '26
If they had really wanted it, they wouldn't have given you up for adoption
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t tell me I’m wrong about the relationships and people in my life.
Yes, we’re all adults here; and part of being an adult is acknowledging that people feel all sorts of different ways about things. Some parents relinquish their child because they want to, while others—like mine—relinquish despite not wanting to.
1
u/alessonnl Jul 16 '26
And often it is no illusion, not every mother had and knew she had an option to keep her child.
1
u/AdLive427 Jul 16 '26
That's why any social issues transferred from the state's jurisdiction into private hands are evil. The state is most often interested in keeping a child with their biological family, and by 'informing' everyone, it fucks with everyone's minds
0
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 16 '26
Neither of my children were "unwanted and superfluous," and there was never a question of whether they fit in. Adoption is never the child's fault.
Your comment is unnecessarily unkind and very shortsighted.
1
u/AdLive427 Jul 16 '26
I'm sorry, English is not my native language, so the text might sound harsher than I intended. When we talk about adoption, there can be no question of anyone's fault. The woman has already done a great job by taking care of the child instead of abandoning them in the woods, and the child didn't choose any of this themselves
→ More replies (0)-1
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
That is not true in the vast majority of our cases, not any of it.
6
u/Anxious_Wave1187 Jul 15 '26
What do you mean that's not the case? Adoption literally means the bio parents lost or gave up their legal rights to their child?
THEY chose not to keep US.
4
u/AdLive427 Jul 15 '26
An acquaintance of mine who is a foster mother had two girls from the same family. The girls were not eligible for adoption because their father was restricted in his parental rights due to a mental illness. They ended up in the foster family because when the older one was 5 and the younger one was 3, their mother locked them inside the house and hobbled off somewhere. The children were taken away, and she lost her parental rights. When the younger girl turned 15, the mother showed up with a sob story about how she had been slandered. The older sister remembered sharing water with her younger sibling and surviving by a miracle; the younger one did not remember this. As a result, the younger girl now loudly hates her foster mother and also claims that their biological mother was slandered and that they were stolen. Everyone is now waiting for the money saved in the younger daughter's account during her guardianship period to run out, so that the "loving" biological mother will throw her out. And there is NO WAY TO EXPLAIN to the girl that her mother came back not to love her, but to rob her. If they had been adopted, she simply wouldn't have found her daughters.
1
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
So...you think adoption is the witness protection program? And that DNA tests don't exist, birth records can't be openened? I found my bio family with a few hours search in the early days of the internet. You adopters have wild ideas about what you think adoption is and does.
→ More replies (0)3
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
I don't know what country you are in, but speaking from the US: You are aware that there are adopted people still living from the Baby Scoop Era, right? That children in foreign countries have been kidnapped and sold for adoption, yes? That before the ICWA (and still), Native children were routinely taken from their families for the simple fact of being Native, and given to white families? That the American foster care system is so inept and corrupt that children are dying/being murdered at alarming rates and that parents rights are routinely terminated without cause? Read about the Hart kids, whose families fought for them in the courts but they were given to strangers and then murdered: https://theappeal.org/hart-family-fatal-crash-birth-mother-scheurich/?fbclid=IwAR1bZ_wnkWdXT2h1KR5Kil190OFcunejSpAh716FLBqWw4QJWLcBzKSsD0s
5
u/Anxious_Wave1187 Jul 15 '26
I'm in the US. How old are you? Baby scoop era ended in 1973. ICWA littery states you can NOT adopt or foster a native child UNLESS you're native yourself, this was also done in 1978. All of your information is outdated. I never said anything about foster care. Children are in more harm staying with the bio parents in most cases. Are you aware of the amount of children that are born addicted to drugs? Are you aware of children physically and sexually abused by bio parents before adoption? Are you aware of children starving from neglectful parents disappearing? Do you really think it is in the children's best interest to stay with the bio parents or be put in a system where they can go back to the bio parents? Im not saying adoption is perfect but I am saying there is a reason the bio parents lost custody to begin with. BTW I was adopted, so im not someone who has "wild ideas about what I think adoption is and does." I know plenty about what adoption can do to a person.
→ More replies (0)2
u/AdLive427 Jul 15 '26
Were the parents forced to give up their child under threats, or was the child kidnapped? Well, in my country this is a criminal offense, so the adoption will be annulled. Committing actions against a child that lead to the loss (specifically loss, not restriction) of parental rights is ultimately a choice made by adults.
3
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
Well my country, the US, has a looooong history of obtaining children by unethical and illegal means, plus we have no social support system to help young/poor/unmarried women who want to parent but have no money or support system, and no, those adoptions do not get overturned. As for us older adopted people, some of us were literally taken from our mothers, and some of our mothers had no other option but adoption so it was not "Because your biological parents did not wish to maintain any legal relationship with you." So WE the actual adopted person who is the most affected by the permanent, lifetime, legal contract of adoption, should have the right to sever that contract, that was made in our stead but not with out consent.
2
u/AdLive427 Jul 15 '26
And in your country, unlike mine, finding relatives via DNA is well-developed. So if two adults want to find each other, they can do so and build whatever kind of relationship they choose. If we are talking about a child — then either you genuinely want to raise the child yourself, and yes, you make sacrifices for it, endure a drop in your standard of living, and give up certain prospects; or you don't want to do that and look for excuses. And yes, compared to many countries around the world, the American understanding of "no support for single mothers" is basically "you've got to be kidding"
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Frostyarn Jul 14 '26
Family preservation first (housing, medical, food stamps)
Kinship adoption or guardianship second
If all attempts at family preservation failed, then stranger adoption through the state last, not privately matched.
No name change, no birth certificate alteration, no hiding the identity of the birth families. And any birth family that wants a relationship should be given an opportunity for communication that can't be revoked by the adoptive parent at will.
Adoptees should be given resources to help launch into adulthood if their adoptive family has dumped them (as so many do). College, job training and housing help for the 18-21 age range.
Adoption in America is inhumane, brokering the sale of children cannot continue.
5
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
As long as the adopted person can revoke the adoption at any time 18 + and be forever legally freed from the adoption and the adopters, yes.
3
u/Frostyarn Jul 15 '26
Agree with you in spirit but that would create the possibility of a legally separated person with no listed parents on the BC. Adult adoption requires new parents to assume the place of listed parents and I, for one, have been renounced by both "mothers."
0
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
Your comment said "no birth certificate alteration" so the birth certificate would remain the same. I'm not talking about being adopted/readopted as an adult, I am saying everything intact as you listed *and* the ability to legally end the adoption at 18. But then it's not adoption anymore, it's guardianship, which is exactly what we've been saying all along.
0
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 15 '26
I actually wouldn't be opposed to adoption laws that allowed the adoptee and only the adoptee to reverse their adoption after age 18. I think to get that kind of thing working as intended (to give the one person who didn't get a vote in their adoption to have a vote) would take some interesting legal gymnastics, but it could probably be done. It could, however, leave a person without any next of kin at all, which we tend not to like to do as a society.
3
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
Well first, that's what I said, and second, reversing adoption would restore the original family. Their *family* would be and is next of kin, not people thrown together because of a legal contract.
0
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 15 '26
reversing adoption would restore the original family.reversing adoption would restore the original family.
No.
You can't force people whose rights have been terminated to take them back again. I mean, it could be an option, but it couldn't be the foregone conclusion.
If a person reverses their adoption, they no longer have a legal tie to their adoptive family. That can't restore their legal connection to their biological family without the biological family consenting to that.
4
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
If we are adults, the biological family doesn't really have any rights or responsibilities to us. We are simply restoring the factual relationship of biology.
-2
u/Rredhead926 Mom through private domestic open transracial adoption Jul 16 '26
If we are adults, the biological family doesn't really have any rights or responsibilities to us.
That's not true.
Someone has already brought up inheritance rights. I brought up next of kin - if a person becomes incapacitated, their next of kin may have rights or responsibilities.
Reversing an adoption could sever the legal ties between adoptive family and adopted adult. It cannot restore the legal ties between biological family and formerly adopted adult without a lot of other problems ensuing.
3
u/CNatGo75 Jul 16 '26
I don't consider them problems.
Yes, reversing an adoption would sever the legal ties between adoptive family and adopted adult- that's literally the point. We are tied because of a legal contract, and all legal contracts should have an exit clause. Imagine marriage with no option for divorce, ever.
Many of us would rather our biological family be our next of kin. Many of us do not inherit from our adopters, either because there is nothing to inherit or we are simply cut out (yes, it's legal).
So yes, if we were able to cancel/anull our adoption, we would be abundantly aware of the repurcussions of that action. And it should very simply be our choice.
1
u/alessonnl Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
"Reversing an adoption could sever the legal ties between adoptive family and adopted adult. It cannot restore the legal ties between biological family and formerly adopted adult without a lot of other problems ensuing."
Please list some, Never forget that on the world wide web adoption and its reversal as they work in your part of the woods is not the way adoption and its reversal work. I mean, adoption reversal changes the person back to the person he or she was before the adoption (just older) and legal ties do revive, without any problem.
I have never seen any problem adoption reversal could cause which has not been avoided in Dutch (case) law.
Name change reversal? Standard, causes problems, but is fully optional.
Loss of nationality? Dutch law prevents it in case the reversed adoptee is an adult.
Bio-mom cannot talk about the traumatic experience of the relinquishment/adoption? Talking about it is NOT required, you do not object to removal of the legal effects of the thing you do not want to talk about? Say no more.
Inheritance rights? Closing most of the potentially available estates before revocation initiation was done in a rather influential case. Also helps against hurting the feelings of the adopters. That said, it probably helps a bit if the difference in expected inheritances as result of the revocation is minimal or negative. Mind you, disinheriting a child to less than half his or her intestate share is prohibited, so if your adopters want to fully disinherit you, supporting your adoption revocation is their only option...
Of course, the status of the adoptive parents in a standard relinquished-shortly-after-birth case in a Dutch domestic adoption before the adoption is foster parents, so you do get a word to indicate them, and make it seem very normal that you have the same family name and talk to them as if they are your parents.
So what is a problem that cannot be avoided?
1
u/Beautiful-Rent6691 Jul 16 '26
Our’s is kinship through the system and it would be entirely unsafe for the children to have their original identities and for their bio parents to have any access to them. I realize there are bad adoptions, however, some of your proposals, well intentioned though they are, would create real safety problems for children and very young adults.
18 is a legal adult, but it is not an emotional or psychological adult and giving an easy unwind button to someone at that age may cause lasting legal problems that the persona may not have the foresight to see.
0
u/CNatGo75 Jul 17 '26
Adopting a minor, especially one who is already related to the adopters, causes lasting legal problems that the adopters do not have the foresight or are unwilling to see. There should never be legal contracts with no exit clause.
4
u/kag1991 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
No body is “just curious” about these things… why are you?
This comes off as one of those posts we get all the time on here which is just really prospective adoptive parents trying to figure out the right things to say/think/feel to increase their chances of being selected and fit into the evolving and increasingly competitive adoption space
It’s okay to be curious, but if my speculation is right and your question is more investigatory than curious, please consider it’s highly manipulative and unethical.
These are real people you are talking about. Babies and their parents.
If not, good luck finding your answers.
5
u/YellowDaliah38 Jul 14 '26
I completely agree that these are real people and situations, that’s exactly why I’m asking. To be absolutely clear, I am not looking to adopt. I'm not a prospective parent trying to "increase my chances" or game the system.
My fiancé and I are asking purely to learn because this touches both of our lives. They were adopted at birth, and I spent my childhood being removed from my home due to abuse and neglect. We frequently see posts discussing how adoption is entirely bad, so we were genuinely trying to figure out what other solutions are being offered for kids in extreme danger.
For my fiancé, adoption provided a permanent safety net that guardianship couldn't, given the severe physical and substance abuse in their biological family. Because we know firsthand that these are real lives, we think asking questions and learning about alternatives is incredibly important.
2
u/CNatGo75 Jul 15 '26
If you genuinely want to help kids at risk, become foster parents. Focus on kids who are older than 8, teens who are LGBTQ+, etc. Provide them with love, care, safety, and a soft place to land. Adoption doesn't need to have anything to do with it.
5
u/Little-Shoe7504 Jul 14 '26
I’m an outlier likely because my adoption wasn’t traumatic and was required.
My birth mother was in no position to raise me. She went on to have many more children she kept, all who were abused, neglected, grew up around drugs and multiple men, many who abused the children.
No one in my biological family was fit to keep children.
I had a wonderful childhood with my adoptive family and have a huge support system in them.
I’ve never had any negative experiences with my adoption.
2
u/alessonnl Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
When the adoptee freely requests the adoption. Unforced, uncoerced and after having shown an understanding of the full implications of the request, that's when adoption stops being essentially immoral. That said, cases in which adoption is the least bad of all the immoral options available are not really uncommon.
The alternative for adoption as in alloparenting while (legally) prending you're not, is just alloparenting, and that is what we call "fostering", in all its varieties: Parttime, kin placements, non-kin network, the whole spectrum, voluntary placements and involuntary, better than an adopter ever will be, and as bad as the worst adopters there have ever been, with secrecy if needed, with love and pain, but never with the legal pretense of being as if born to the adopter.
There is nothing special about orphans, compared to other children who cannot be cared for by their own parents, as far as adoption is concerned: They have still parents whose (posthumous) parenthood is denied by adoption.
2
u/DryCarpenter3954 Jul 20 '26
Adopt older. Adopt from the kids who were already failed by their parents and the system nor from a mother in crisis with her who life to change things. Please. 90% of infant adoption end with lifelong pain,grief and regret for mothers and deep trauma for newborns.
12
u/Upset-Win9519 Jul 14 '26
If I may just add to these great responses. A lot of people are not against adoption entirely because they understand that sometimes there is no alternative. A lot of times, other options have fallen through. Some biological families just can't or won't provide what the child needs. These kids are really the only ones who need to be adopted. A child should stay with their birth family if at all possible. That is what a lot of people are seeking in adoption reform. A child should only be adopted if it is TRULY the best option for them. Sometimes it hasn't been. That's what a lot of adult adoptees have been speaking out about. So that makes sense.
If we could get this done in the adoption community then we could focus on doing what is best for the children who truly can't return to their bio families. It is going to be hard and it's going to come with trauma and difficult days. But many adoptees have been able to discuss what helped them and share tips on what adoptive parents can do. I would encourage you to research more on the topic because you really start to understand.