Disclaimer #1: I am an American writing within a United States context because that is what I am familiar with. Many other people have written about family law issues in other countries or in international contexts.
Disclaimer #2: I am not an adoptee, nor am I currently a parent involved in adoption. Adoptees are the most affected parties in adoption, and as such their perspective should always be given the greatest weight. Parents involved in adoption are the second-most affected parties whose perspective should be given the second-most weight. Please listen to adoptees over me.
Disclaimer #2: I am not an adoptee, nor am I currently a parent involved in adoption. Adoptees are the most affected parties in adoption, and as such their perspective should always be given the greatest weight. Parents involved in adoption are the second-most affected parties whose perspective should be given the second-most weight. Please listen to adoptees over me.
With that said, let's talk about why almost all discourse around adoption in the U.S. is rooted in harmful underlying assumptions and structural inequalities, especially the oppression of children and framing of children as property.
Family law in the U.S. is deeply flawed and limiting. This is true not only in the context of adoption, but in every family situation other than that of two cisgender adults married to each other, sharing a household, and solely raising their shared biological children. Every other type of family situation (including single parenting, extended family co-parenting, adoption, fostering, step-parenting, and any other type of family structure) is contorted to fit into an approximation of this nuclear family model. Multi-parent families are not acknowledged, with children allowed only two "real" parents. Non-biological parents can only gain parental status if biological parents lose theirs. Parenthood is equated with marriage or romantic partnership between parents. Mandatory child support is imposed on families who are not seeking it in order to qualify for public benefits that should rightfully be available for all. Custody disputes center around the "rights" of adults over children rather than the wishes or best interest of children, and when the interests of children are considered, they are interpreted through the lenses of sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heteronormativity. Disabled parents and poor parents are considered inherently inferior to wealthy abled parents (I've written about this in other posts, most recently this one). Poor families can have their children removed from the family simply because they lack money to pay for their children's needs, and states will transfer the children to foster or adoptive parents, who receive state subsidies to pay for the children's needs.
In short, the system is broken, and everything is wrong with it.
In short, the system is broken, and everything is wrong with it.
The system is so broken that, in a rare national consensus, almost everyone agrees that the system is broken, even if no one agrees on how to fix it.
But because the problems are rooted in pervasive, unquestioned societal prejudices such as ableism, classism, racism, sexism, and most of all, ageism, most analyses of the problem and proposed solutions also perpetuate those same pervasive, unquestioned societal prejudices. Many people, including elected officials and supreme court justices, argue that the ability to place a child for adoption is a reason that pregnant people have no need to access abortion. Other people, attempting to rebut or expose the "hypocrisy" of those people, argue essentially that no one wants adopted children, or that since biological mothers are forced to have custody of children (which they are not), someone other than the biological mother should be "forced" to have custody of children. Many people (purporting to be from varying points of a political spectrum) oppose adoption across the board, and especially oppose state-mandated termination of biological parents' custody, from essentially a property-rights stance ("taking" "their children"). Others oppose nonbiological families based on children's perceived intrinsic need to be raised by their two biological parents -- but the fact that they don't oppose all nonbiological families equally (for example, very few people oppose sperm and egg donation on this basis) reveals that their belief is less than sincere.
These arguments do not acknowledge the humanity, needs, or agency of children -- specifically, their need and human right to be loved and wanted by their families, whether biological or nonbiological. These arguments also do not acknowledge the humanity, needs, or agency of parents of origin who choose to place their children to other families. In addition, these arguments do not differentiate between parents who abuse their children or otherwise make intentional choices which make removal necessary for children's safety and well-being, and parents who either fail to conform to societal norms or lack the material or external resources to meet a child's needs.
So let's run through some common conditions for which adoption is proposed as a solution, and clarify whether or not adoption is the correct solution to the issue at hand (or what the correct solution would be).
Note: This is about whether the CONDITIONS for adoption are correct or incorrect, not whether the individual adoption SITUATIONS are positive or negative. Conditions in which adoption is necessary can still lead to harmful individual adoption situations. Conditions in which adoption is not necessary can still lead to beneficial adoption situations. Defer to adopteees on their own adoption situations.
Condition:
A parent does not have the money to pay for their children's physical necessities, like housing, utilities, food, or healthcare.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to make subsidized housing, utilities, food, and healthcare available to all members of the family.
Condition:
A parent is disabled and needs additional assistance to perform activities of daily living or to help their children perform activities of daily living.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to assign the family a publicly subsidized personal care attendant to help with activities of daily living as needed.
Condition:
A parent is psychiatrically disabled and behaves in ways that are perceived as "odd" or "strange" by those around them.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to assign the family a publicly subsidized personal care attendant to help with activities of daily living as needed.
Condition:
A parent is psychiatrically disabled and behaves in ways that are perceived as "odd" or "strange" by those around them.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is for the people around them to get over their neurobigotry and accept neurodivergent people as they are.
Condition: A parent does not have the skills or knowledge to effectively care for their children. They make make choices that endanger or harm their children, but motivated by ignorance, not malice.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to provide the parent with education on child care, and ensure that they have the material resources to implement it. To prevent this situation from being so widespread, the correct solution is to make child care and child development classes standard in every public school.
Condition: A parent is an immigrant or noncitizen in the U.S., and has a native-born child who is a U.S. citizen. The parent is being deported to their home country.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to abolish deportations and allow citizen and noncitizen families to live together.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. The correct solution is to abolish deportations and allow citizen and noncitizen families to live together.
Condition: A parent has conceived a biological child, but for whatever reason, does not want to take on the role of being a child's primary caregiver.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Yes. Many people who conceive children do not actually want to be primary caregivers or do not feel that this familial role is right for them. They may love and care about their children, and want them to be raised by loving parents, but do not want to be those parents themselves. This is entirely fine and valid! Raising a child, even under ideal circumstances, is an intensive physical and emotional commitment, and if a parent does not feel that this is the right familial role for them, allowing their child to join another loving family unit is a loving, justified, and good option.
Yes. Many people who conceive children do not actually want to be primary caregivers or do not feel that this familial role is right for them. They may love and care about their children, and want them to be raised by loving parents, but do not want to be those parents themselves. This is entirely fine and valid! Raising a child, even under ideal circumstances, is an intensive physical and emotional commitment, and if a parent does not feel that this is the right familial role for them, allowing their child to join another loving family unit is a loving, justified, and good option.
Condition: Parent(s) and a child's family of origin have died or are otherwise unavailable to be full-time caregivers.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Yes, it can be, although it is better for a child to be adopted by someone close to them, someone they already know, so as to minimize the traumatic disruption to their lives and the trauma of losing their family of origin.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Yes, it can be, although it is better for a child to be adopted by someone close to them, someone they already know, so as to minimize the traumatic disruption to their lives and the trauma of losing their family of origin.
Condition: A parent intentionally, repeatedly chooses to physically abuse or neglect their child. This is not a result of ignorance or lack of resources, but because of the parent's own choice.
Is adoption the correct solution?
Maybe. It can be.
Maybe. It can be.
Children are not property, and parents should not have the right to abuse their children. Children may need to be rescued from abusive parents.
And child abuse is, in fact, a choice, not an aspect of "needing help." The nominally progressive discourse that there is no such thing as a bad parent, only a parent who "needs help," equates a parent who is poor, a parent who is disabled, and a parent who chooses to abuse their child as the same thing. Two of those parents need help (material resource help, not psychiatric treatment (unless they choose it)), while the third needs to have their child rescued from them. Choosing to abuse a child is not attributable to disability or circumstance; it is in fact, a choice for which individuals can and should be held accountable.
But more to the point, children have a right not to be abused. Children have a right to be rescued from abusers. If parents refuse to stop abusing their children by their own choice, the best way to keep their children safe may in some cases involve transferring them to another family unit.
Condition: A person is pregnant and does not want to, or cannot safely, use their body to gestate and give birth.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. Adoption can only happen after birth. The only solution to this condition is to terminate the pregnancy.
Is adoption the correct solution?
No. Adoption can only happen after birth. The only solution to this condition is to terminate the pregnancy.
In short -- any discourse on whether adoption is correct based on the family of origin's CIRCUMSTANCES (poverty, disability, age, singlehood) rather than the family of origin's DESIRES and CHOICES is inherently the wrong framing.
"Poor/disabled parents should just place their children for adoption" is wrong, but so is "Adoption is wrong because parents just need help."
Parents "needing help" is not the only reason that adoptions happen. Parents also choose to place their children of their own volition, or choose to abuse their children of their own volition and choose to create a situation from which their children need and deserve to be rescued. Parents are capable of making choices. "Biological imperatives" are fake.
Everyone who conceives a child should have every opportunity and every resource necessary to raise that child, but should not be compelled to if they do not want to. Nor should their parental rights override a child's rights to safety and freedom from abuse.
This is my second sneak preview of my upcoming much longer post on eugenics and reproductive rights, a/k/a How To Be Pro-Choice Without Being Pro Eugenics.
For information on adoption from adopted people:
bastards.org
bastards.org
