Should adopters be made to financially compensate adoptees and their mothers when adoptions have been proven to cause emotional distress and suffering in their lives (which is basically all adoptions)?
Adoption is essentially buying a child, which is a business dealing, and if other businesses have to pay to compensate for their mistakes, why not adopters?
What amount would be fair?
Related posts:
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
Sure. That’s a great idea. About a million dollars would be fair. It would pay for therapy. But why are just the adopters paying it? The natural mother’s family should pay compensation because in many cases they were the ones who put pressure on their daughters to give up their babies. Women who signed away their rights without being coerced should pay for emotional damage to their children. Parents who had their children taken away by social services should of course pay damages too.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
Paying b moms is setting a very dangerous precedent. Babies are not (or shouldn’t be) a business. Surely financial help for mothers to keep their babies would be money better spent? If I ever adopted, I’d never be able to live with myself if I thought for a second the b mom was depressed and suffering.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
No, because the trauma’s gonna happen anyway.
Oh, and don’t forget, not everyone "buys" a child, some people actually adopt for very little expense at all.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
No amount of money could ever compensate for the emotional distress and suffering that adoption causes. Unless it is proven that an adoptive parent went to great lengrhs to adopt no matter what and deliberately caused emotional distress and suffering then no they shouldn’t be made to pay.
ETA I should have added that if anybody should pay its social workers/adoption agencies for being manipulative
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
I definitley think they should be held accountable and be sued when they lie to an con someone out of their child with false promises.
A court of law should say that them doing this is NOT OKAY.
ETA: It is the adopters fault is they LIE to someone to sway their decision. How is that NOT their fault?
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
If they don’t have health insurance to help pay for therapy, the state surely offers non-profit counseling services. It’s not the adopters "fault" that the mother put the child up for adoption (whether willingly or not)- if anyone was going to be ‘sued’, it should be the adoption agency who are most likely twisting the truth to the mother and the prosopective adopters (if the adoption is not truly what the mother wanted).
I feel that way only about private adoptions- because foster adoptions are due to the parents obvious neglegence.
YES, everyone should have access to counseling. Definitely.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
Nope. My ap’s had no idea the coercion that was involved with my adoption. Nor did they know how different and challenging it would be to raise a stranger’s child. I say everyone should sue the industry.
Had they been involved with a "pre-birth matching" scam, I would not only sue my ap’s, Id never speak to them. But considering they have no money, Id be wasting my time anyway.
Maybe I should go after the Catholic Church, since they were the ones who sealed my fate. They seem to have deep pockets.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
How about all the costs of raising a child? Diapers, formula, food, shelter, medical care, Christmas & birthday presents, & sometimes even college? Or is that not good enough for you?
Can you imagine the response if someone flipped your question around & asked if birth parents should pay their children’s "adopters" for the cost of raising the children?
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
Money would def. not take away the pain my adoption has caused me, but maybe I could actually afford some counceling for myself! that would be nice.
July 27th, 2010 - 9:24 pm
"Buying" a child? My adoption is costing me exactly $0.00., but I am adopting an older child from the foster care system. Would it make sense to put children into a warehouse style orphanage until they are 18 or 21 to avoid the possibility of them being distressed by their adoptive family? That would guarantee distress, would it not? Would it be smarter to force the parents who cannot or will not care for them to keep them?
I know LOTS of people who have been adopted, but I don’t know one who hates their parents for causing them emotional distress. They’re happy that their birth parents loved them enough to find them a safe and loving home to go to. All adoptions don’t work out so well, but a large majority of them do…adopted kids are WANTED kids, and they are CHOSEN kids-most adoptive parents are eternally grateful for the child that came into their lives, and love those kids MORE than if they had given birth to them.
I’m not sure why you consider all adoptions to be buying a child…I’m adopting because I think that all kids deserve a loving home regardless of the circumstances of their birth that gave them parents that were unable or unwilling to care for them. I could give birth to a child, but I choose to care for someone else’s child that’s waiting for a home…it’s not about business, it’s about the fact that every child deserves a real home.
The children that I am working on adopting have already suffered enough emotional distress by staying with their birth parents who neglected and abused them.
I think you need to talk to a professional about your issues with adoption…perhaps you had a bad experience, but I guarantee it’s not typical.